The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP_009r. AV ��► �.1 t�Ei, tt�,.1 ��lt`' 1 1 1 i l ti i 1 �.1 �•�i+� k I11 °1 ti tt►en! m A. POST OFFICE BOX 8 A w• CALIFORMA March 12, 1984 On March 8, 19849 the Balboa, Peninsula Point Association Board of Directors voted unanimously to go on record as being opposed to the following:. HE: 1319 E. Balboa Blvd, Balboa 1. Any codification or variance regarding building height. 2. Any modification or variance regarding building setbacks. 3. The proposed structu a being disproportionate ar out of scale with neighboring properties. Balboa Peninsula Point Association 14� Nancy Larner �''�••' President NL:chw V gyp" IA I AM OPPOSED TO GRANTING ANY VARIANCE OR EXCEPTIOW TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 131 •� � 9 E BALBOA PROPERTY IN EXCESS - _ OP THE ORI{iINAL TZONING INTENT. M ,a �;.. -, • may/ Ay C7-A. ti AGO" c, 60 -- v- � '~ ^�.• y r y., ram,,, -J t UN , _ _ rtr. Y "' .{ € it., -'��k +ir'?!�✓i[ 54`- .�2jibf�t .,at • f -t •` — AM I CAL Oro ff�'•r�tys.;, • �eLr.�' `•!•.!!�_ a t`r' - - y � ..t��aar�_.�T�y"u'�.��t �r�..jw�k•�� •,. - _ * f 1 • %. �•��fs� .'.,1�� t� ��. �• F1.�}:'i ►• � '.y,•�, � j "r'!s'i*[ 0 f �. ,lm.L-fit•-�'r'"t y�tt+a�' ► '__ — �w`.•i , ` �, r' 44, :� •�_� .'��) • t • IiiY�� 1:4.' Wpp�[.�L� D r - � � , - - .r'•CT .1: +■G4��y'��.�i��', �.: yt••t {i �1�L•• �i �� ,., 1,. I�.3 r+ , � •',.,.. �4, +�... ��i •`��Y•/:.�)•Ij�it�'!'�. d: '��e''�f L � ,. � + T � ,% • � �)'�L.O��O�.� � �A.�.�.t,j,_ .La., -�s. t 1Fd•�k yy ,, . � 'r. s ,•� 'ark,. - - +- a • .I -' lAla-- wovL VAA At4�• otter %.liCLa. 14. C. C.E:ee11�44CJ r1Q.µ� ia-ar4 ec .a.� -4ti.E•Li�•s�� '�O 1�0.<r4 ��.t d% .i.i24A , e�+� as �.t 4A CAd rat, ef,* lie, few • 4-,A.h.(4WIAA 0.. L'M[.stGCG4�U�►a Cat �f L L.a. 11�f �it ►.. UP t jj rr f► t J .t•. At,,,� ! �[/ G Tt •,; f �; Syr .. f9-t � { •1�...,.�,�.:�"T WA4��Lvt ice. -low rs�-� WtQ • _ w�. �� • d•�th.C.+, �t."T7C,t ► �D4� L'R��.•' eytl �'• • •'r •"�7`{� r {�.0 C.�tt'Jlti Vf , � ! S�f ►4Vy e�-•� 1 'pY" - ♦ U ,t'ti! �t ! � -r << i i'_`�rr �.t3�} '��i'• �.��'.1.4i+A;r�yi;�� 1 %� '' -f '� µ� r!i!Ji� �1 , x�FTr:{�••'+� ✓L�.ti; '� ;.ij:.►��t 1�,c:`�L-k. '�- y�,',••�.L' 7"' •n - - - Kam., . � r�. , .. '�• r ."r fair•• � ♦•�,r •. Gatall14,/ a 4 ILA • r`■a,� ,� •�+a-�-• � +.1M•rQ.{ 6�'f']} a j�. �T1Q K� Jr) t 4.,t T-"� a-m—A r l ` VVV vd- Q'Q'�"-a 4 Z.. ► !Y. �. ��4a..� .s. a s �R.� <.... �i p t IL 141�4 ZTII . ''-la' ..T;; . r . • p:,• , •v.`^7�L114Ca t �^+�.�.''� t r,1 • Vr • (y •j �� " •!�7{�y�}yy�a` Ai �• r • - t' � n .y • � _•�• �,!�. �% 1 :,�flty�ia�'r�t_ • M''Gir`�'�.•ve wlx.,�••[i'�.�r `�'_ �. Mrw.tyw�x,�y •-r� 5`4 -`t�r^'4.� �l v..W :+r •-v.. a '� F �-4•r'e7.4 M1FYA . .i -_% !r`('�:p -�_ M•}y�1 J.� ,.� e i t s'v�,r,�3ivS�. A^.iT�r_,tj i•w.. r�a•!�'�•}LF'' h rc t �� a a��-� - w �eii � s:: � w �'?� �'�t ' . :�,'' •1'•� �,, •y .ik'.t � ♦ FF YA .. 'l -;. n ♦:;- �r r �y 1.. yr— �-,( �4 E �s r •LL '. �t .,r• •t ,1 T � 4 rfxs u N v. •IU, � ., sr .a � :�..•c. a a .., •"'••`. �... s�; N.jt.. K x.. .L.e. .: � 1+�4 \ ...n .�e�.t.e`�. • w^'r1,',. .�.. �•,,�,rJ.�it � • . e '•-•.A CST y..� r � ��a naartla March 139 1984 City of Newport Beach Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA Attn: Sandy Re: Balboa 4 Condominiums 1319 E. Balboa Balboa, CA 301 UI(ch �1flCI NCn;xK1 Ik;Wh, Cc yNo Ttkplxmc (7141 MI ()ill Here is the information that we obtained on the tenants at 1319 E. Balboa. There are currently 3 residential units onsite and that is the maximum ..II number -of units onsite in the previous 12 months. Tenancy Avg. Yearly Tenant .Nam' Residence/Mailing Address Ph.1 Began lncone `= Lisa 'Frederick/ 1319 E.- Balboa, 0100 673- x129000 Renee Sheffner (back'unit),,CA' 2082 1/1/83 each .(roow aces) ; Kenneth Field 1319 E. Balboa, f200 673- _ (upstairs). Balboa, CA 8653 5/21/83 $23,500 Peter J: Hurray 1319 E. Balboas, 000 631• (downstairs). -.Balboa, CA ti329 5/21/83 $25,000. r This inform tion has rb6en verified by phone with the tenant:. • .Si corely• �.., ,. ....• ��' .' .. it ACW Die'Felesky. Pulaski -b "Arita.:;.,e:y� ', w, ha : .h•. '.Ls -.•y •v •y• "�4r r J � .:ly .. - .•� • �-•�.�/aertiri". ,. 4.:i �«l. rw �, t r.r., ...,. r.�'•.� :. 1� ,ry '.•Wdr"(( 1•.:' .,r r Y' A.. ,Y. J`�.r4 K:I+•.i4.•H v a � ��, 6 r. .,. f r... ~..w+;. ,. ......... rt • .ys`�sY`4 y`. -YF. .,ti, r7 t'•�• ..1 Syr �c � .�� +�» :ayr 1f`Y'•It :`��.� 'F. r1 r+�; r ^era;, ;� r:F,ir..-••a•• � +,n . •�•,M• ,. W-.,,r�•':'.••it.r.•., �.'s .,, •.tr,�r., +s •: y IC,-1!M '�/at �:..•Lrd-^'•.p5.i 6:r"r4i •.N•.kl'•f'fl.r...ti•.1. ir14.4hyY�.1#•'y: '. •Ny'�IrA �f f*w4 L••s1L :- 4•t~r:-.:•..iw sa.i4vMe F�a .•�flL'!'�s.'��'•N L`� rJ ao s•7.r�`alc •r. t Wes? iSia K+1WP•i�sa>.4YrrTnN•i-:. .ra..�.e .rr .,......__.._..... ___., _-"--.. ._ 'Y+--.er..rtN .. q•:r ....� �._ a—- _ i� 0 City Council Meg July 9, 1984 T0: FROM: SUBJECCt Cit/ Council Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Planning Department Public Hearing Scheduling - July 23, 1984: A. Resubdivision No. 773 r-lo(a) Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land int.r, a siralle parcel for residential condcatinium purposes, and thu acceptance of an environmental document. mc ii. Use Permit No. 3091 (Pevised) Request to permit the cr,nlstruction of .Y four unit r4+sldential condominium development And related (larnUes or, pr4')perty located in the R-3 District. The proposal also included a morfificatiop. to the Zoning Code so as to allow a reduced width for a proposed parking access drive in conjunction with extra wide garacles. AND C. Residential Coastal Development Kermit No. B Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a four unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administra- tive Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to low- and moderate -income housinq within the Coastal zone. WCATIONs Parcel 1 of Parcel Nap 84-1 (Resubdivision No. 403), located at 1319 Fast Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly side of Past Balboa Boulevard between "E" Street and "F" Street, on this Balboa Peninsula. ZONE R-3 APPLICANTt Pulaski and Arita, Newport Beach OWNER Robert P. Warmington, Costa stela ENGINEER/ ARCHITECT: Same as Applicant TO: City Council - 2. Revised AER ications The applicant has revised his previous use permit application which now includes a request to construct a four unit residential condcrnlnium development on property located in the R-3 District which conforms to the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District on the front one-half of the lot ti.e., (x:nan aide), the 28/32 Foot Height Limitation District on the rear one-half of the lot :street side), and all required building setback requirements# including no garage encroachments in the four foot easterly side yard 4n originally proposed. The proposal does, however, include a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a reduced width of a proposed parking accass drive in conjunction, with wider than standard garage parking spaces. Ilse Permit procedures are net forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code and Modifications procedures are act forth in Chapter 20.61 of said Crxle. For the purpose of establishing a four unit residential condcoinium develop- ment, the applicant is also requesting approval of a single lot reeuhdivinion. Resubdivision procedures are set forth in Section 19.12.040 of the Municipal Code. A Pesidential Coastal Permit in also requester] in conjunction with the proposed development. Sunented lction If desired, act for public hearing on July 23, 1984. Planning Commission RecommendatiGn At its meeting of June 21, 1984, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the approval of the subject applications. Copies of the Planning Commission staff report, an excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes, and the revised plans will be forwarded to the City Council at the time of the hearing. City Council Review Resubdivisions, Use Permits, or Residential Coastal Development Permits usually are not reviewed by the City Council unless appealed, or called up by the Council. However, at the City Council meeting of August 26, 1974, the City Council approved Resubdivision No. 403 (Amended), which created one building site, and an additional Condition was added that required any future develop- ment of the site to be subject to the preparation of an environmental document and to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. It should be noted that the parcel map approved in conjunction with Resubdivision No. 403 (Amended) was recorded on August 12, 1976. Therefore the above referenced Condition requiring both Planning Commission and City Council approval applies to the current project as well. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by -k& 'A. 26t65je WILLIAM R. LAYCOCK Current Planning Administrator WRL/kk City Council Mee K&Z 14, 2984 Agenda Item No. D-5 CITY OF h-EWKRT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: Resubdivision No. 773 A request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land into a single parcel for residential condominium purposes, and the acceptance of an environmental documents 0 Use Permit No. 3091 A request to permit the construction of a four unit residential condominium development on property located in the R-3 District which exceeds the 24 font basic height limit an the front one-half of the lot in the 24/28 Foot Height Linitation District. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed ground floor garages to encroach four feet into the required four foot easterly side yard setback areal F W. Residential Coastal De^felc ment permit No. 8 A request to consider a Aenidential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a four unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of State Law relative to low- and moderate -income housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 84-1 (Rosubdivision No. 403), located at 1319 East Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly side of East Balboa Boulevard between "E" Street and "F" Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE: R-3 APPLICANT: Pulaski and Arita, Newport Beach 0M1i$R: Robert P. warmington, Costa Mesa ENGINEER/ ARCHITECT: Same as Applicant APPLLU1XTs holly Pulaski, Newport Beach . TO: City Coil - 2. Su ested Action Hold hearings close hearings if desired, sustain, modify or overrule the decision of the Planning Commission. Planning Ccomission Recommendation At its meeting of March 22, 1984, the Planning Commission voted (6 Ayes, 1 No) to deny these items with the rindings as follows: A. EVVIRO1OUNTAL DOCUMENT: FIXDIUGS: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CCQA)I the State CCQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered on the various decisions on this project. 3. That the Guidelines indicate that environmental documents are not required for projects that are denied. H. RISUBDIVISION No. 773 FINDINw, 1. That the rindings regarding the environmental document also apply to Resubdivision No. 773. 2. That the approval of Resubdivision No. 773 would not, under the circmatances of this particular case, be beneficial to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed project. 3. That the proposed resubdivision in conjunction with the subject development proposes problems from a planning standpoint. C. USE PZRMST No. 3091 FINDDIGSs 1. That the rindings regarding the environmental document also apply to Use Permit No. 3091. 2. That the height and bulk of the proposed structure will create an undesirable, abrupt scale relationship with existing surrounding development inasmuch as the proposed structure is substantially larger and taller than most development in the area. 3. That the proposed development will not result in more public visual opera space and views inasmuch as the proposed project is built across the fall width of the site adjacent to the public beach. Tot City Coil - 3. 4. That the proposed four foot garage encroachments into the required four foot easterly side yard setback are inappropriate and represent a significant departure from established standards for development in the R-3 District. S. That the approval of the proposed side yard encroachments would establish an undesirable precedent that would affect future residential development on the Balboa Peninsula. 6. The proposed side yard encroachments will, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3091 and related applications will, under the circumstances of this case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, contort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. D. RESIDENTIAL COASTJkL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 8 FINDINGS 1. That the Findings regarding the environmental document also apply to Residential Coastal Permit No. 8. 2. That Residential Coastal Development Permits are not required for projects that are denied. Staff, also, had recommended the denial of these applications. The Planning Commission lade the determination that a viable project may be designed on the site without exceeding the twenty-four foot basic height limit. An elevation of the five dwelling unit complex, approved by the City on the site in 1974, is attached to the Planning Commission staff report for Council review. Said plan indicates that a two-story plan was proposed on the front of the property, with a three-story elevation adjacent to Last Balboa Boulevard meeting the permitted height limit. The Comission also made the determination that the proposed side yard en- croachnnts to the easterly side property line for three two -car garages represent a significant departure from the established standard for development is the A-3 District. To allow such encroachments would establish an undeair- able precedent which would affect future development in the older portions of tthe City on other narrow lots. Staff also attached to the Planning Commission staff report a plot plan of the five dwelling unit oosrplex on the subject property that received City approval. Said plan indicates that no side yard encrowlmnts were proposed. ss, ,?Os City Coxil - 4. Background The applicant subsequently appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. Attached for the information and review of the City Council are copies of the Planning Ccsmission staff report prepared for the C Mission meeting of March 22, 1984 and an excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes of March 22, 1984. Respectfully submitted, �PLANMIMC DEPARTKW JAM D. HZWC1ZR, Director Eby QZ& T . MILLI-R. LAYCOCK IF Current Planning Administrator MRL/kk Attachments for City Council Only: Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated 3/22/84 Planning Cossmission Staff Report dated 3/22/84 - with attachments Letters of Opposition (2) Petition in Opposition to Proposed Development (with lb signatures) Tentative Parcel Map • Plot Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations r TO: PROMS SUBJECT: PLRMING COMMISSION lIMING M rah 22 1984 Agenda Item No. 3 CITY OF NEWPORT SFAC11 Planning Contission Planning Department A. Resubdivision No. 773 (Continued public !leariwSg) Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land into a single parcel for residential condominium purposes, and the acceptance of an environmental document. rF B. Use Permit No. 3091 (Continued Public Hearing) Request to permit the construction of a four unit residential condominium development on property located in the R-3 District which exceeds the 24 toot basic height limit located in the 24/28 root Height Limitation District on the front one-half of the lot. The proposal also includes a modification to the zoning Code so as to allow the proposed ground floor garages to encroach 4 feet into the required 4 foot easterly side yard setback area. VX C. Residential Coastal Development Permit Mo, B (Discussion) Request to consider a Residential Coastal Devreloparent Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a four unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administrative cuidelines for the implmentation of State Lary relative to low -and -Moderate income housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel clap 84-1 (Resubdivision No. 403) located at 1319 East Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly side of East Balboa Boulevard between "C" Street and "P" Street, on the Balboa,Feninsula. 7.ONES R•3 APPLICAKs Pulaski and Arita, 1lewport Beach OWNERS flobert P.. Warmingtan, costa Hasa ENGDCMR/ ARCH I'rI Sam as applicant TO: Planning Commission - 2. Applications These applications are a request to construct a four unit residential condominium complex on property located in the R-3 District which exceeds the 24 foot basic height limit located in the 24/28 root Sleight Limitation District on the front one-half of the lot. In accordance with Section 20.73.015 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, condominium projects may be permitted in any residential district, subject to the securing of a use permit in each case. Bection 20.02.030, A. provides further that the Planning Commission or City Council may approve development in excess of the basic height limit up to a maximum of 28 foot average roof height on the front half of the lot, subject to the approval of a use permit in each case. Use Permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code. The proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code ao as to allow the proposed ground floor garages to encroach 4 feet into the required 4 foot easterly side yard setback area. Modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.81 of the Municipal Code. Included also is a request to permit the construction of roof top architectural features of an open nature which exceed the basic height limit. In accordance with Section 20,02.061 of the Municipal Code, such architectural features may be permitted, subject to the Planning Commission's approval. For the purpose of establishing a four unit residential condominium development, the applicant is also requesting approval of a single lot resubdivision. Resubdivision procedures are set forth in Section 19.12.040 of the Municipal Code. Conformance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Progr", Land Use Plan The Land Use Elements of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Plan designate the subject property for "Multi -family Residential" uses. The proposed development is a permitted use within this designation. SubJect property and Surrounding Land Uses There are three older rental units located on the subject property at present which will be removed prior to the construction of the proposed project. To the north, across East Balboa Boulevard, are single-family dwellings) to the east, are three 4-unit apaztnsnt buildings facing East Balboa Boulevard and three single-family dwellings to the rear of the-fourplexes facing the public beachi to the south, is the public beach and the Pacific Oceans WA to the west, is an older single family dwelling and the public beach. TOs Planning Commission - 3. Background At its meeting of June 21, 1973, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit no. 1665 (4 Ayes, 2 floes, 1 Abstain) which was a request to construct four apartment dwelling unite on the subject property. In accordance with Emergency ordinance No. 1490 which was in effect at the time, any new construction in the R-3 District on the Balboa Peninsula, other than use■ permitted in the R-1 or R-1.5 tistrict, required the securing of a use permit in each case. The action of the Planning Commission was subject to the four following conditions of approvals ;. That development be in substantial conformance with the approved revised plot plan and elevations, except for minor modifications approved by the Department of Cowunity Development. All development shall comply with the requirements of the 24/28 loot Height Limitation District. 2. That a minimum five foot wide landscaped planter be located along East Balboa Boulevard, except at the approved ten foot wide driveway. 3. That only architectural features such as cornices and eaves (excluding fireplaces and chimneys) shall be permitted in the proposed five foot rear (oceanside) yard setback. 4. That a resubdivision and parcel map shall be filed. In accordance with Condition No. 4 above, the applicant filed a resubdivision application in order to establish a single building site (Resubdivision so. 403) which was approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of August 2, 1973, The approval of Resubdivision lio. 403 was subject to the following conditions 1. That Use Permit Application No. 1665 is approved by the City Council and all other conditions of the use permit are fulfilled. 2. That a parcel map be filed. At its meeting of August 13, 1973,°the City Council considered an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission concerning Use Permit No. 1665. After numerous continuances, the City Council overruled the action of the Planning Commission and denied (5 Ayes, 2 Noes) Use Permit go. 1665 at its meeting of December 17, 1973. In 1974, a second project was proposed for the subject property and the Planning Coymission, at its July 18, 1974 sating, approved an amendesnt to Resubdivision No, 403 so as to delete Condition no. 1 as set forth ,above. At that tir, there was considerable discussion rolatad.to the tarps of conditions which could be attached to.the TO: Planning emission - 4. • resubdivision and the control which could be exercised over the design of a project through the resubdivision procedures. Such discussion was due to the expiration of the emergency ordinance which previously required a use permit for multiple -family residential development on the Balboa Peninsula. said requirement no longer existed, and therefore, the only discretionary review by the City at that time was Resubdivision No. 403 (Amended). The Planning Cossaission's approval of Resubdivision No. 403 (Amended) was subsequently appealed to the City Council by the Citi;eng to Protect peninsula Point Environment. At the City Council Meeting of August 26, 1974, the City Council approved Resubdivision No. 403 (Amended) and an additional condition was added that required any future development of the site to be subject to the preparation of an environmental document and to be reviewed by the Planning Comission and City Council. It should be noted that the parcel map approved in conjunction with Resubdivision No. 403 (Amended) was recorded on August 12, 1976. Therefore, the above referenced condition requiring both Planning Commission and City Council approval applies to the current project as well. In October 1974, a Modification Application was filed with the City (Modification No. 855) which was a request to allow a 2 foot and 4 foot second floor deck encroachment into the 10 foot setback along the beach and an 8 foot encroachment into a 12 foot side yard setback, in conjunction with a five unit apartment development. It was later deteremined by the Planning Commission that the modification for the 8 foot encroachment into the required 12 foot side yard setback was not required inasmuch as the Code provisions requiring such setback did not apply to the subject property. Inasmuch as the development of the site was subject to the acceptance Of an. environmental document and the automatic review by both the Planning Commission and the City Council by virtue of the condition Placed on the property under Resubdivision No. 403 (Amonded)# the Modifications Committee referred the application directly to the Planning Commission without prior review or action modifications Committee. by the On November 7, 1974, the planning Coastission accepted a Negative Declaration, and recoweended approval of modification No. 855, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial compliance with the site Plan and elevations as submitted, except as noted below, 2. That the requested modification for the balcony encroachsrants into the ocean side setback be denied. 3. That all other provisions of the residential development standards and the R-3 District be met. At its .meeting of December 9, 1974, the City Cot=il sustained the action. of the Planning Coss;irsion and apptnved Modification NO. 855, subject to an additional condition that private, property regnirad the dwsloper to use only, for the storing,.of building materials; in conjunction with the subject project. The above referenced project was ultimately denied by the Coastal Cosrcissian on March 29, 1976. E • 701 Planning Commission - S. Environmental Significance After an Initial Study was prepared, project will not have any significant Wegative Declaration has been prepared review. it was determined that this environmental ispaGt, and a and is attached for Commission Coastal Residential Development Permit No. B This application is a request to consider a Coastal Residential Development Permit to establish project compliance with the City's Administrative Guidelines (Policy P-l) for the imples:entation of state Law relative to low- and moderate -income housing in the Coastal zone. City Council Policy P-1 states the following: 1. Require the replacement of low -and -moderate income housing units in the Coastal zone which are lost as a result of demolition, subject to certain feasibility criteria. 2. Require that new housing developments in the Coastal zone include housing for low -and/or -moderate income households where feasible. inas=ch as the subject property is presently developed with three low -and -moderato income housing units and the proposed condominium project involves more than three units, the Planning Commission must determine the feasibility of requiring the inclusion of dwelling units affordable to persons or families of low -and -moderate income and/or the feasibility of replacing existing low-and-wmoderate income units lost due to the new construction project. In order to determine the feasibility of requiring affordable housing in conjunction with the proposed project, staff has contracted with Tarantello i Company of Newport Beach to provide this analysis. A copy of this -report is attached for consideration by the Commission. The report provides an analysis of return on investment with the project, including one moderate -income unit in one of the four new residential units. It is the opinion of the consultant that the provision of one moderate -income unit on site is not feasible. Analysis A new property owner is now proposing to construct s lour unit residential condominium development with related garages on the subject property. The following outline identifies the major characteristics of the proposed project: TOr Planning . ssion - 6. • Land Area: (202.421 x 4S') 9,108.9 Sq. !t. Number of Units: Permitted by Zoning Code (i-s. 9,108.9 sq. ft. t 1,200 sq. ft. a 7.59) 8 units Proposed 4 unite Setbacks: R aired ProR 05ed Front (East Balboa Boulevard) 0' 4' for building and 0' for wall and gate Westerly side 4' 4' and 22' 2 for living area# 4' and 25' for garages Easterly side 4' 4' for living area, 0' for gararias only Rear (ocean Front) 10' 10, Buildable Area (lot area less setbacks); 7,119.5 sq. ft. 3 X Buildable Area (permitted in the R-3 District by CMOs 21,358 sq, ft. Proposed Groan Structural Areas Excludincl Cara es Ineludin garages (permitted in R-3 District) Unit A 2,140 t sq. ft. Unit B 2,706 t sq, ft. Unit C 1,845 t sq. ft. Unit D 1 967 t sq. ft. TOTAL# 8,658 t sq. ft. Floor Area Ratios 1.21 X Buildable Area Parking: Required: (1.5 spaces per d.u.) Proposede (2 garage spaces per d.u.) Open Spaces Required: 6,216 cu. ft. Proposed: in excess of 64,000 cu. ft. 2,520 t sq. ft. 3,086 t aq. ft. 2,225 t sq. ft. 2 347 t s . ft. 10,178 t sq. ft. 1.43 X Buildable Area 6 spaces 8 spaces TO: Planning Commission - 7. Building height ;see details below) Permitted& 24/28 root Height Limitation District on the ocean side of the loth 28/32 Foot Height Limitation District on the street side of the lot. Proposed: 28 foot average roof height The proposed develnt conforms with all applicable development standards except for those items discussed in the following sections. Proposed Building Height Section 20.11.020 of the Zoning Code provides that the height limit for the R-3 District on Balboa Peninsula shall be in accordance with the 24/28 foot Height Limitation District on the front one-half of the lot and the 28/32 loot Height Limitation District on the roar one-half of the lot. In conjunction with the review of previous projects on the subject property, the Planning Commission determined that for the purpose of determining allowable building height, the ocean side of the lot would be the front halt of the lot. Section 20.02.040 of the lierrport Beach Municipal Code states that the Planning Commission, in granting any use permit for structures in excess of the basic height limit in any zone, shall find that each of the following four points have been complied with: I. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a strong and move appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing development or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given'to the total bulk of the structure including both horisoatal and vertical dimensions. 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use -permit. M Planning• ssian - 8. ., . As indicated in the previous outline, the applicant proposes a 28 foot average roof height (with a maximum height of 33 feet t, w..surd to the top of pitched roofs) for both the ocean side of the lot and the street side of the lot. Therefore, the applicant in requesting a use permit to exceed the 24 foot basic height limit in the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District and has prepared the following statements relative to the above required findings of compliances a. "As governed by the basic height limit and density requirements, the development of the above property could conceivably be developed as a single building covering the entire buildable area, 24' high at the front half, and 28' high at the rear halt. This configuration of building would completely eliminate any substantial open space that could be incorporated. The applicant proposes to develop only a portion of the rear half of the lot to the 28, average height, and requests to be allowed to build to a IB' average height at the front half of the lot. The additional 4' allowance to the front halt of the lot would enable the applicant to substantially reduce the ground cover of the building to 57% compared to a potential loot. This results in a substantially increased amount of space visually open to the public. b. The increased height of the building would result in a more desirable architectural character, of more refined proportions. The additional height allows room to step back on the site, to provide for landscaped areas surrounding the property. This would greatly enhance the neighborhood since there is presently dense development with little or no landscaping provldad. C. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships between the proposed structure and existing developments or public spaces. The total bulk of the building proposed is substantially lower than standards of development would allow in this zone. resulting in a structure of desirable character and scale. d. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. The floor area proposed is substantially less than the zoning Code allows for this area." It is.staff'e opinion that the proposed project does not fully conform to all of the above criteria for the following reasonst I. Although the gross floor area of the proposed project (including garages) is only 1.43 times -the buildable area of the site, the height' .oi the: proposed structure is significantly higher than most *othere development in the area with the exception of the existing two-story single-family structure directly east of the subject property and a three-story single-family dwelling across East ' Balboa , Boulevard. . A11 other, development in the area is tiro -story construction which substantially conform to the 24/28 TO: P 1Ccrissi - 0 1�4 on 9. Foot Height Limitation. it is staff's opinion that such a difference in height will result in an undesirable and abrupt change in the scale relationship with existing surrounding development inammuch as the property is highly visible and projects well beyond all other development located westerly of the site along the beach. 2. Although the proposed project maintains a considerable amount of open space volume (in excess of 64,000 cu. ft.), a Majority of this open space is adjacent to the westerly interior side yard setback area, in the form of an access drive for the on -site garages. It is staff's opinion that in order to be considered as "Public visual open space", open space should be located adjacent to public areas in the fors of increased setback* along public streets, beaches or bay, etc., or be designed in such a manner so as to provide public views through the property. it is staffs opinion that the location and design of a majority of the open space in the proposed project, does not meet this criteria. Staff is also of the opinion that a viable project may be designed on the site without exceeding the 24 foot basic height limit. An elevation of the five dwelling unit complax approved by the City on the site, is attached for Commission review. Said plan indicates that a two-story plan was proposed on the front of the property, with a three-story elevation adjacent to Ust Balboa Boulevard. East rly Side Yard 8ncroachments in accordance with Section 20.16.045 B. of the Newport Beach municipal code, R-3 lots that are wider than 40 feet shall have a side yard setback of not less than 4 feet. As shown on the attached plot plan, the applicant is proposing to construct three two -car -garages along the easterly side of the property which encroach 4 feet into the required 4 foot side yard setback area. Said encroachment will be 6 feet high at the side property line and B feet high at the side setback line. The proposed encroachments will allow the applicant to design enclosed garage spaces that are perpendicular to the side property line and still maintain the necessary 24 foot back-up area between the garages and the opposite side property line. It i■ 'staff's opinion that the proposed side yard encroachments represent a significant departure from the established standard for development in the R-3 District. It is staff's further opinion that to allow such encroachments would establish an undesirable precedent that would effect future development in the older portions of the City,on other narrow lots. Staff has also attached a plot plan of the five dwelling unit complex on the subject property that received City approval. Said plan indicates that no side yard encroachments were proposed. TOr Planning Cosstission - 10, Architectural Features As shown on the attached elevations, the applicant proposes to construct several .roof -top architectural features which exceed the allowable height limits on the subject property. said architectural features are located at the end of the most prominent gabel roofs and are of an open nature. In accordance with Section 20.02.061 of the Municipal Code, decorative roof -top features of an open nature are permitted in excess of the height limit subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Not withstanding staff's previously stated concerns regarding the proposed roof height of the project, staff has no objections to the proposed roof -top architectural features. Building Code PzVirements As indicated on the attached floor plane, the applicant is proposing a third floor living area in three of the proposed units. In accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building Code (1979 Edition), third floor living areas are required to maintain two independent stairways to the ground floor. The Building Code also requires that the proposed garage walls to be built on the easterly property line must have a 30 inch parapet wall or that the garage roofs must be constructed of non-combustible material with a two hour fire rating. Said roof shall also be designed so as to prevent drainage onto the adjoining property. Fair -Share Contribution In the discretionary review of projects, the City has been requiring contributions, by developers to the "fair -share" improvements to the ultinate,eirculation system and also to the construction of sound attenuation barriers on the southerly side of Kest Coast Highway in theL west Newport area, adjacent to Irvine Terrace on East Coast Highway, and adjacent to Eastbluff on Jamboree Road. In conjunction with the previous residential condominium development approved by the City Council, the amount of the required fair share contributions were determined based on the amount of traffic resulting from the net increase in dwelling units on the property. Inasmuch as there is a net increase of one dwelling unit in, conjunction with the -subject project, the ,estisated net increase in average daily trips is 22. Based on an established figure of $214.00 per daily trip, the fair -share :allocation- for ultimte circulation system irprov=Wnts will'.be approxinately`92,568.00. The noise wall contribution will be $240.00,.based-on $20.00 per daily trip. Toe Planning Casssission - 11. Specific Findings and Recowwendation Section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Comission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neiWx)rhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. In addition to Section 20.73.025 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code also provides that the Planning Commission shall make specific findings in order to approve a use permit for a condominium project and Section 19.12.020 (D) provides that the Comission shall make specific findings in order to approve a resubdivision. Staff reccmimends denial of the subject applications and suggests that the Planning Comission take such action, subject to the Findings set forth in the attached Exhibit "A4. should the Planning Coumd ssion wish to approve this application, the Findings and Conditions are set forth in Exhibit "8". PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMS D. HEWIC7CLR, DIREMR (1 - - IP -- . W lust Ward Senior Planner WWW/pw Attachmentst Exhibit "A" exhibit "B" vicinity Map Negative Declaration Plot plan and elevation of forayer residential, development on the site. Report from Tarantella, & Company Tentative Parcel Map Plot Plan, Floor plan and xlevations TOs Planning *emission — 12. E7(HIBIT 'A" FINDINGS FOR DPIYIAL MR RESURDIVISION NO. 773, USE PERMIT NO. 3091 AND RESIDENTIAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PEMIT 90. 8 (March 22, 1984) A. ENVIPDOG tPAL DOCiKEfT 1. Take no actions on the Initial Study and Negative Declarationi 2. Recommend that the City Council take no action on the environmental docusontj and 3. Make the findings listed belows Findings: 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CDQA), the State CF.QA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered on the various decisions on this project. 3. That the Guidelines indicate that environmental documents are not required for projects that are denied. B. RESU$DIVISION NO. 773 Deny Resubdivision No. 773 with the Findings listed belows Findingas 1. That the findings regarding the environmental document also apply to Resubdivision No. 773. 2. That the approval of Resubdivision No. 773 would not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be beneficial to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed project. 3. That the proposed resubdivision in conjunction with the subject development proposes problems from a planning standpoint. Planning Cosssission 13. EXHIBIT 'A' - Con't. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL C. Use Permit No. 3091 Deny Use Permit No. 3091 with the Findings listed belowl Findingst 1. That the findings regarding the environmental document also apply to Use Permit No. 3091. 2. That the height and bulk of the proposed structure will create an undesirable, abrupt scale relationship with existing surrounding development inasmuch as the proposed structure is substantially larger and taller than most development in tho area. 3. That the proposed development will not result in more public visual open space and views inasmuch as the proposed project is built acroas the full width of the site adjacent to the public beach. 4. That the proposed 4 foot garage encroachments into the required 4 foot easterly side yard setback are inappropriate and represent a significant departure from established standards for development in the R-3 District. S. That the approval of the proposed side yard encroachments would establish an undesirable precedent that would affect future residential development on the Balboa Peninsula. 6. The proposed aide yard encroachments will, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood of the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3091 and related applications will, under the circumstances of this case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 1'0: •troy - .. - _ ing CoMMUsion 14. EXHIBIT 'A' - Con't. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL C. RESIDENTIAL COASTAL DEVELOPKM PERMIT NO. e Deny Residential Coastal Development Permit Xo. B with the Findings listed below: lindir sa 1. That the findings regarding the environmental document also Apply to Residential Coastal Permit No. a. 2. That Residential Coastal Development Permits are not required for projects that are denied. T! Planning Comission - 15. . EXHIBIT "00' FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPRDYAL FOR RESUBDIVISION NO. 773, USE PERMIT NO. 3091 AND EtESIDENTIAL COASTAL DEVELOpM= PERMIT NO. 8 (March 22, 1984) A. ENVIFO*I M'AL DOCUMENT 1. Approve the Negative Declaration and supportivo materials thereto, 2. Recommend that the City Council certify that the Environmental Document is completer and 3. Make the Findings listed below: Pin--din9sr 1. That the environmental document is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the • State CEQA Guidelines and City policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered on the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the Environmental Document have been Incorporated into the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as Conditions of Approval. S. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. g. RLSUBDIVISIOU NO. 773 Approve Resubdivision No. 773 with the Findings and subject to the Conditions listed belows Findingst . l•' That -the, findings regarding the environmental document also apnlr,to 4esubdivision No. 773. J TO: dkannirq Commission - 16. • . . EXHIBIT "D" Con't. 1pno'"= AM CONDITION FOR APPROVAL 2. That the map Meta the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no Problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 5. That the site is physically ■uitable for the proposed density of development. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of Property within t subdivision. he proposed Conditionsr I. That a parcel snap be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sever lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the public Works Department. 4. That all conditions of Reaubdivision No. 403 (Amended) approved by the city Council on August 26,,1974, shall'be fulfilled. C. USE PERMIT NO. 3091 Approve Use Permit No. 3091 with the findings and subject to the Conditions u listed below, Pi�ndirL v: 1. That the findings regarding the envirormental document also apply to Use Permit No. 3091. Z.; That each of the proposed units has been designed as:.a condominium with ,separate and individual Utility connections. • :. T� Planning CosMissian — 17,. EXHIBIT 'B" - Can't. • PINDIMM AND CONDMCUS rM APPFIDVAL 3. The project complies with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the Proposed project is located at this time of aPPrMal, except for the proposed 4 foot garage encroachments into the easterly 4 foot side yard setback area. 4• The Project lot size conforms to the zoning Code area requirements in effect at the time of approval. 5. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan, and the Adopted Local Coastal Program Land use Plan. G. That adequate on•sito parking spaces Are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 7. That the proposed 4 foot garage encroachments into the easterly side yard setback area are minor in nature and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety# peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or Injurious to Property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 8. The increased building height will result in more Public visual Open space and views than is required by the basic height limit. 9. The increased building height will result in more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character Of tb*•area than could be provided with the basic height limit. 10- 'The iu=sasad building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created :between the structure and existing develapmnts or public spaces. 11, The.strntturs will hav,'no more floor area than could halm beta achieved without the use perscit. TO' Wanninq Comission - 18. ' EXHIBIT "Bo - Con t. IrDMING9 AND COImITIONS FOR APPROVAL 12. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons rnsiding or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 13. That the proposed decorative roof -top features are open in nature and do not in themselves, block views from adjoining residential properties. Conditional 1. That development shall he in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the proposed third floor living areas shall be revised so as to be in conformance with all applicable provisions of the uniform Building code (1979 Edition). This condition will necessitate a second stairway from the third level living area to the ground level. 3. That two on -sits parking spaces shall be provided for each unit. 4. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 773 be fulfilled. S. should any resources be uncovered during construction, a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and in accordance with City Policies K-6 and K-7. 6. Mal design of the project shall provide for the .inoorporation of:water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water using facilities. 7. That a grading plan if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilitiss,•to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. 8. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description.of, haul,routes# access points to the site.and.a watering and sweeping program designed to minimise impact of haul operations. 0 TOt Planning Comission - 19. EXHIBIT "B" - Con t. FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL 9. An erosion and dust control plan, it required, shall be submitted and be subject to tha approval of the Building Department. 10. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, and the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. 11. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 403 (Amended) as approved by the City Council on August 26, 1974, shall be fulfilled. 12. That the proposed residential development shall meet the provision of Section 20.11.020, B., of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as to permitted building heights in the R-3 District on the Balboa Peninsula except for those portions of the roof as shown on submitted plans, which exceed the 24 foot basic height limit on the front one-half of the lot. 13. That the applicant shall provide verification during the course of construction that the proposed development fully complies with the provisions of Condition No. 12 above. Required verification shall be prepared and certified by a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer prior to final inspection of rough framing. 14. That the proposed security gate shall be equipped with an automatic opening and closing device or said gate shall maintain a minima setback of 20 feet measured from curb line. . . . . Tog Planning Cossaission - 20. EXHIBIT -B- - Con t. FIMDINX AM CONDITIONS ]FOR APPROVAL D. RRSIDENPIAL COASTAL DZVELOPMM" PERMIT 10O. 8 Approve Residential Coastal DeveloPMent Permit No. 8 subject to the following Findings and subject to the following Conditions Findingss 1. That based upon the 1nf0rmati0• Presented to the City, if four new units were to he developed on -site, it is infeasible to provide an affordable housing unit on -site or off -site. 2. That the development of this site is not exempt from the provisions of State Law relative to low and moderate income housing units within the Coastal Zone. 3. That is it not necessary to provide affordable housing related to this application on -site or off -site. Conditions 1. That all conditions of Resubdivision No. 773 and use Permit No. 3091 shall be fulfilled. 0 4 ' • City Council Meeting July 23 1984 TO: FP'-F : Agenda Item tin, D-2 CITY OF NVWPORT BEACH City Council Planning Department SUBJECT: A. Re:sutdivision No. 773 Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of lnrul into a single parcel for residential condominium purposes, find the acceptance of an environmental document. AND R. Use Permit No. 3091 (Revised) Request tr, permit the construction of a fnflr unil. zom idential condcninifim development and related gar<,ges or, Ifrr,l,e:rty locatecl in the R-3 District. The proposal also includnr, n modification to the Zoning Code: no as. to allow a reduce:cl s+irlt.ii fr,r A proposes} parking access drive in conjunction wits. r'xtr,I wirle garages. AND C. Residential Coastal Development Permit 110, Ft Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a four unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administra- tive Guidelines for the implementation of the :state Law relative to low- and moderate -income housing within the Coastal zone. LOCATIG'a: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 84-1 (Resubdivision 110. 403), located at 1319 East Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly Aides of East Balboa Boulevard between NE" Street and "F" Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONE I R-3 Al"PLICAliTs Pulaski and Arita, Newport Beach cVNER: Robert P. warmington, Costa liesa nx iNEER/ APCHITECT: Same as Applicant Revised Applications The applicant has revised his previous use permit application which now includes a request to construct a four unit residential condominium development on property located in the R-3 District which conforms to the 24/28 Poot Height .1 41TO: r City Council - 2. Limitation District on the front one-half of the lot (i.e., ocean side), the 28/32 Foot Height Limitation District on the rear one-half of the lot (i.e., street side), and all required building setback requirementrr, including ne, garage encroachments in the four foot easterly side yard an originally proposed. The proposal does, however, include a modificatint, to the Zoninrl C0110 so as to allow a reduced width of a proposed parking access drive In conjunction with wider than standard garage parking spacer, use Permit. proved-ires are set forth in Chapter 20.8O of the Municipal Code and Modifications procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.01 of said Code. For the purpose of establinhing a four unit residential condrlminium develop- ment, the: applicant is also requesting approval of a single lot renubdivision. Pl!subdivision procedures are set forth in Section 19.12.040 of the Municipal Code. A Residential Coastal Permit is also requested in conjunction with the proposed development. Suggested Action }Hold hearings close hearings if desired, nustain, modify f,r overrule tho rf2commendation of the Planning Commission to appruve thene appiicat.irnH, Plariniri(I CormivaiOn Pecommendatior, At itH meeting of June 21, 1984, the Pla:1nlnq Commission vr,►_ed i+tlar:fmr,unly to recommend the approval of the subject applications, with the r1r1dir,gH and subject to the Conditions as follows: F.NVIRG11MENTAL DOCUMENT FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document iu complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. ., That the contents of the environmental document have been considered on the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the prorw,sed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the Environmental Document have been incorporated into the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as Conditions of Approval. 5. That based upon thn information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto, that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project it will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. 0 •TQs City Council - 3. RESUBDI71SION No. 773 FIHDINCS3 1, That the Findings regarding the environmental document also Apply to Pon,ibdivision No. 773. 2. Tt..,t the map meets the requirements of Title. 19 of the Ilawport Roach Hurilcipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable genural or optcific plans, and the Plnnning Commission is satisfied with the plan of nurdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems frr,m a planning utandpoint. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 5. Ttiat the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of develoir. ent . 6. That the design of the subdivinion or the propoRed impre,ve-mantK will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at lartln for access through or use of property within the: proposed suMivinion. CONUITi .415: 1. That a parcel map be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be starved with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public works Department. 4. That the proposed development shall be reviewed by the City Council as required by the approval of Resubdivision No. 403 (Amended). USE I'EPNIT NO. 3091 (REVISED) FINDINGS: 1. That the Findings regarding the environmental document also apply to use Permit No. 3091 (Revised). 2. That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condcesinium with separate and individual utility connections. 3. The project complies with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at the time of approval, except for the width of the proposed access drive. T0: City Council - 4. • 4. The project lot size conforms to the Zoning Code aran requirements in effect at the time of approval. 5. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and lx')licies of the General Plan, and the adopted Local Coastal Program Land (isle plan. b. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 7. That the reduced width of the proposed vehicular acconm drive is acceptable in conjunction with wider than standard garago parking spaces on the 45-foot-wide parcel. 8, That the establishment, maintenance or operation of thu use of building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the noighhnrhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 9. That the proposed building will he designed in full cc,mpliancf, with the height limitations of the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation Uin►.rirt or, the front ono -half of the lot, and of the 20/32 Foot Ifeiyht Limitation bistrict on the rear one-half of the site, and further that said building is of comparable height to the adjoining single-family dwelling easterly of the subject property (i.e., 28 feet 3 for the proposed devolopmtient and 32 feet t for the existing structure). 10. The proposed use of a narrow vehicular access aisle will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvement in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed modification is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 24 of this Code. 11. That the proposed development will generate an increase in daily trips sufficient in magnitude to warrant a fair -share assessment to mitigate the increased traffic congestion and traffic noise resulting from the cumulative affect of additional traffic generated by the residential development. CUNDITIONS s 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the proposed third -floor living areas shall be revised no as to be in conformance with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code (1979 Edition). This Condition will necessitate a second stairway from the third -level living areas to the ground level. 3. That two on -site garage spaces shall be provided for each unit. TO: City Council - 3. 4. That all Conditions of Approval of Resubdivision No. 773 be fulfilled. 5. Should any resources be uncovered during construction, a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to �:Grpletion of construction activities, and in accordnncr. with City Folicie:s K-6 and K-7. 6. final design of the project shall provide for the if -corporation of water -saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 7. That a grading plan, if required, shall include a complate plan for terporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential inracts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. 6. 'Che grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping program rlt.signed to minimize impart of haul operations. 9. An erosion and duct control plan, if required, shall be nubmitted and l:e rsubject to the approval of the Building Department. 10. :lwt an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, bo approved iy the California Regional Water Quality Control board - fsnnta Ana Regicr., aral the plan be submitted to said board ten days prior to any construction activities. 11. That the proposed development shall be reviewed by the City Council as required by the approval of Resubdivision No. 403 (Amended). 12. That the proposed residential development shall meet the provisions of Section 20.11.020, B., of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as to permitted building heights in the R-3 District on the Balboa Peninsula. 13. That the proposed security gate shall be equipped with an automatic opening and closing device or said gate shall maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet measured from curb line. 14. Prior to the issuance of Building and Grading Permits, the applicant shall pay fair -shard for circulation system improvements and noise walls as established by ordinance. 15. That the total second- and third -floor separations between Units B and C shall be no less than illustrated on the approved plans. HF:5IDE:NTIAL COASTAL PERMIT NO. 9 f INDItics I 1. That based upon the information presented to the City, if four new units were to be developed on site, it is infeasible to provide an affordable housing unit an site or off site. TO: City Cou cil - 6. 2. That the development of this site is not exempt from the provisions of State Law relative to low- and moderate -income housing unite within the Coastal Zone. 3. That it is not necessary to provide affordable housing relats?d to thin Application on site or off site. CONDITION: 1. That all Conditions of Resubdivinion No. 773 and Use Permit tie. 301)l (Revised) shall be fulfilled. Attached for the information of the City Council is an excerpt of the Draft Planning Commission Minutes of June 21, 1984, and a copy of the Plarninq Cormission staff report with attachments, which describe the, applicant's request. Pespectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICICER, Director by 'W , WILLIAM R. LAYCOC ee; Current Planning Admifistrator WRL/kk Attachmentu for City Council Onlyi Excerpt from Draft Planning Commission Minutes of June 21, 1984 Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments Tentative Parcel Map COM N21. c , 19R4 '` 'DROL ~ES v 2 o a A v n; a City } Beach L Pal. CALL Nxx t1. H+taut►rl�vlt{iun ltn. 77-1 (pul,l is II?.rryr�t itrm M 1 Vef'1iust to resttuixlividc: ari exintincf [k;rc:ul Of lanrl into a ningle for l+esub. N773 parcel residential conclominium lAyrl,r,o.,n, and _ - Ulu kcceptance of an environmental document. Aitrl AND It. llae Permit No. 3091`(Revyse(l) (Public lkturinrij fPnvisotl) Fc"lu"r,t to permit Om (:ar.strl+ctior3 of ., 4-,atilt r+•n�•frtytlal 1~tt� rnnrlonllry►llm dOvOlr,j►rs:nt and riflated claracic•n un [rrol,.•rty lnrnt?rl in the N-3 Dintrict. The, prupo:yal nlru lncliollr, 'Pelt. Cstl. u rv)(lif"'"1011 tr, the 7.onin+i code ro ,It tr•) t11rr+! a r<rd+lca.l :.nv. Permit r;+.'fs— ___ Width frrr a 1IMPO'Ned parking nee' -fin drive y!! r+,nlllnCLiUt1 with O'xtra will? rl.trarten. AND %,x proved Crn r! i - C. Rersidenti.11 Cn.jatal r*velo ment Permit Ito. 8 (Discus- t�tonr�l R'Nu?at to consider .s Rusident ial Coastal Doveloprw.nt Permit for the purpose of entabli:shinq [project corm;,fiance for A 4-unit residential coniWminiclm devetofgnt punyu.u:t to the Adminitstrative Mildol inen for the implementation of the State 1,4w relative to low- and moderate -income hnticsilxt within the Coastal 7nne. [.t)CATION: Percrl I of Parcel N.il. 114-1 (pr+r.c:L- di vision No. 401) loi-.rted at l ll's East Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly side of f:aat (salhna ftoul,•- vard between 'T" 5trmt and "F" Street. on the [lalboa Peninsula. 70NE:: k- 3 APPLICANT: Pulaski and Arita. Nc.4qaort Hcach owttE:RS POt-ert P. Warminrlten, Costa Mesa FPK*O l ttE:F. R/ AROITTP.C'['1 Same as Applicant t -7- CC M JuA21, 1984 0W&AffES AW CAL! The public hearing wau opened in connection vith tl,lu item and Polly Pulaski, Appl icarnt, appeared be (Urn till, Planning Commission. Mr, ihlinnki discussed the ikse.k- yrrnrnrl of the project, and stated that the deuirin fkf the structure conforms with the Vity's d volohntft. standards. Liz Wallace, 2017 F:ant ocean lir,ulevard, appeared hurt,r+s the Planning Comrisniron and stated ttast she is the owtrr.r of this property inmodiately adjacent to the properly In question. Ks. Wallace commented that the Cnant-tl rorrrniu- nion, in 1978, reconmtnrfed that the .ub)ect Iorul+nrty b(. zoned P-1 in the front and P-2 in the tkIck, mcr. W,riljr(,s: then discussed her concesrn with the dtfnxity t)f tlip pon- innula atxi exprossed her belief that the PraV,n10 %trrr0--- Vire would not be in keeping with surruundinq develolmornt . Hs. Wallace then stated, on behalf of the Ualfnn ppnin- sula Point Association, that the proposed strurt.ury is too large to be situated on the Peninsula and rrilayed the Association's concern with the potential for settintl a precedent. In response to Ks. Wallace'n comments relative to clown - zoning the property, Commissioner Kurlander stated that it would be inappropriate for the City to downzone the property at this time itutsrmuch rrs a specific projert is bending before the City. Commissioner Person stated that he had been informal that the Balboa Peninsula Point Association would not he sending a representative to speak in opposition to the cuhject application. Ka. Wallace responded that Mr. Pendell was to have bean at this evening's meeting; however, she added that she came to thrr meeting this eveninq an she was of the npin- ion that Mr. Pendell was still out of town. IBEX -8- COM MM Ju&l, 1984 MWTES r- c p r /'� _:-City VINewport Beach RIOLL CAU Cowdesioner Person stated that the project nets t.l,,, rity'e develcgment standards. Additionally, Ctj"Mianiriner Person suggested that if the Balboa Peninsula Poin! Atssociation and/or the Central Newport lieach Assor:intion feel that other Peninsula properties merit a review in terms of zoning, that the Association(a) should reriuent a City review thereon. In response to Planninq crAruaission inquiry, Ms. Wallace commented that she resides at 2017 Fast ocean Ifoulevard. MH- Wallace added that although she is the owner of a four -plea, the units are small and closely resamble hnuseo. Corm ianioner fur1411H <sxpre8ned hit, dinageeenunt with Mil. Wnllnca'g allegation that the proponed slEnsit.y fr,r thu project is excessive, and pointed out that ttw l,rnject complies with City lawn, COMminnioner Balalis then brought notice to the fact that the subject Property is presently for sale and discussed his concern with the possibility of the new owner modifying the develop- ment plans for the property. Comiessioner Ralalis requested that Mu. Wallace state her concerns with the proposed dosign of the project. Ms. Wallace responded that she is concerned with the height of the rear units, inasmuch as she felt same would affect the rentability of her units due to the resultant lack of view and air flow. Additionally, tlii. Wallace discussed her concern with the docks extending to the wall, and the possibility of noise problems arising there fraa. Comminsioner [talalls pointed out that the docks are pttr_ witted to extend to the eotback line. Additionally, it was noted that the decks are proposed for the ground - level only. Lillian Kanph, 1320 East Ocean Front, appeared before the planning Commission and opined that the project is fait accoepli. 14. Kamph then requested clarification as to the portion of the building which would face her property. Consequently, Planning Director llewicker displayed the project plans and reviewed same with Ms. Kamph. -9- J , 1984 s ES 4 X •r • 3 i w O i ROLL CALL Motion All Ayes M Commissioner Goff referred to MS. Kamph's ststaeAont that the proposed project is fait accompli, and stata4 Cleat he does not consider this, nor any other item iefur* thn Plan- ning Commission, to be decided until after the 1►uhlie: hear- ing has concluded and the Planning COmmission has vutwcl thereon. Comissionetr Balalls referred to his previously expruapeii concerns relative to possible gale of the property, and suggented that an additional Condition of Approval bci Imposed to read as follpwat "That the total second- and third -floor separa- tions between Units li and C shall be no less than illustrated on the approved plans." Folly Pulaski, Applicant, indicated concurrencn with (-cnr►- misatoner Ralalis' auggoated Condition of Approval. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made that the Planning Commission approve the Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto, recommend that the City Council certify that the Environ- mental Document is commplote, and approve Resubdivision ilo. 773, subject to the Findings and Conditions contained in Exhibit "A", which MMION CARRIED. A. rWIROfMEN'T)LI. DOCUMENT Findings: I. That they environmental doc►maent in complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environsental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City policy. 2. That the contents Of the envir x antal document have been considerod on the various d4cisions on this pro- ject. -10- to COM JAI, 1984 . MMtTEs � r I Of NeM)at Beach • ROu CA1 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts tit thn pro- posed project, all feasible mitigation measures din. cussed in the Znvironmental Document hay* teen incor- porated into the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures identified in the initial Study have been incorporated into the propraead project and are expressed as Conditions of Approval. 5. That based upon the inforua tion containefl in th,, Initial Study, Negative Declaration and suPPOrtive materials thereto, that if the mitigation measuren are incorporn- ted into the project it will not have a nielniticant adverse impact on the environment. B. MSUBDIVISIM NO. 773 Findings; 1. That the findings regarding the environmental document also apply to Resudivision No. 773. 2. That the sap meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Comission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. 5. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed taprovMMts will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. -11- Jual. M4 n hOUTES !ia t Ion All Ayes Ix kv of Conditions: I. that a parcel asap be filed. 2. That all improvements be constructed as roriuired by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with an Individual water service and sewer lateral connection 1.0 the Public water and sewer system unless ot.herwlse ipproved by the Public Works Department. 4. That tho proposed development shall be ree•rlewerd b.j the City Council as required by the approval rar Aesubdivislnn No. 403 (Amended). Notion was made for approval of Use Permit No. 3091 (pe- vised), subject to the Findings and Conditionn contained in Exhibit "A", with an additional Condition to read as follows: "That the total second- and third -flocs septrz- tions between Units B and C shall be no less than illus- trated on the approved plans." MOTION CARRIED. C. USE PERMIT NO. 3091 (REVISED) Findings: 1. That the findings regarding the environmental document also apply to Use Permit No. 3091 (Pavised). 2. That each of the proposed units has been dasignod as a condominiums with separate and individual utility connections. 3. The project complies with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed pro- ject is located at the time of approval, except for the width of the proposed access drive. 4. The project lot size conforms to the zoning Code area requirements in effect at the tire of approval. 5. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and Policies of the General Plan, and the Adopted local Coastal Program Lad Use Plan. NXX -12- 1XI COMJune 01964 , W&UrES Ix W so - :;, -1- 11 6. That adequate on -site parking spaces are availawo for the proposed residential condominium dnvelrl,nnnt. 7. That the reduced width of the proposed vehicular access drive is acceptable in conjunction with wirier than standard garage parking spaces on the 45-font-wide parcel. B. Ttiat the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort an(i general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimentasl nr injurious to property and improvements in rii„ b--)rhood or the general welfare of the City. 9. That the proposed building will be designed in Bill compliance with the height limitations of the W 28 Foot Height Limitation District on the front one-half of the lot, and of the•28/32'Foot Height Limitation District on the rear one-half of the site, and further that said building is of comparable height to thn adjoining single-family dwelling easterly of the sub- ject property (i.e., 28 feet t for the pro"ed development and 32 feet t for tho existing structure). 10. The proposed use of a narrow vehicular access aisle will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residinq or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification is consin- tent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 11. That the proposed development will generate an increase in daily trips sufficient in magnitude to warrant a fair -share assessment to mitigate the increased traffic congestion and traffic noise resulting from the cumula- tive affect of additional traffic generated by the residential development. -13- June , 1984 0 ATES Conditions: 1. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans, ar►ri eleva- tions, except as noted below. 2. That the proposed third -floor living areas ahall be revised so as to be in conformance with all applicable provisions of the uniform Building Code (1979 rtlition). Thin condition will necessitate a second stairway from the third level living areas to the ground level. 3. That two on -site garage spAcen shall be prcvld,nr! for each unit. 4. That All Conditions of Approval of PeeUt/i1vin1cn 1i0. 773 be fulfilled. 5. Should any resources be uncovered during construction, a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and in accordance with City Policies K-6 and K•7. 6. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-savinq devices for project lavatories and other water-usinq facilities. 7. That a grading plan if required, shall Include a complete plan for temporary and permanent (ItAinage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. 9. 4he grading permit shall include, if required, a des- cription of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping program designed to mini- mize impact of haul operations. 9. An erosion and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. Ex Ju01, 1984 W ,,W4MES ROU CAII notion Al) ayes Ix 10. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by tho California Regional water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Mqlon, and the plan be submitted to said Board tan days prior to any construction activities. 11. That the proposed development shall be reviewed by the City Council as required by the approval of ftsubdivision No. 403 (Amended) . 12. 'mat the proposed residentinl development shall meet the provisions of Section 20.11.020, R., of the Newport [leach Municipal Code an to parmittUd building heights in the R-3 District on the Unl- boa Peninsula. 13. That the proposed security gate shall to arpuippad with an automatic opening and closing davlcce or said gate shall maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet measured from curb line. 14. Prior to the issuance of Building and Grading Permits, the applicant shall pay Fair -Share for circulation system improvements and noise walls as established by Ordinance. 15. That the total second- and third -floor separations between Units 8 and C shall be no less than illus- trated on the approved plans. Motion vas made for approval of Residential Crustal Development Permit no. e, subjoct to the Findings and Conditions contained in Exhibit "A", which NOTION CARRIED. rindingee 1. That based upon the information presented to the City, if four new units were to be developed on -situ, It is infeasible to provide an affordable housing unit on -site or off -site. 2. That the development of this sits is not exempt from the provisions of State taw relative to low and moderate-incame housing units within the Coastal Zone. -15- r� 21, 1984 Is ~ES e x r of NewWt Beach KEX 7. That it is not necessary to provide affordabie housing related to this Application on -site or off -site. Condition: I. That all conditions of Re subdivision No. 773 and Ose Permit No. 3091 (Revisrd) shall be fulfilled. . . . General Plan Amendment No. 0.1-2(b) (Public Iluari _ Item 04 Request to amend the llousinq Blement of the !(ewport Beach GI'A 133-2(h) General Plan so as to update the Coaaunity Housing Market Analysis and Housing Needs Assessment Sections on the Recom- basis of more recent data and revise the Constraints to mon�ded Housing Delivery and Housing Progran Sections in reaponoo A Mrov$1 to imPlementation progress made since November of 1902. to City This amendment is being made pursuant to Government Code Council Section 65580, at seq. Also requested is the acceptance of an environmental document. IRSRATED BY t IbO City of Nerrport Beach Advance Pla ng Administrator Lenard reported that the State Gepartme of Housing and Cone unity Development identified three cific areas of concern with the City's draft i(ousi .lement Amendment, to wits I. In the area of needs easement, HCD felt there was a potential for confus the relationship of the demand/supply analysis wi the SCAT; Regional Housing Allocation Model. Mr. Lenar advised that staff has subsequently modified language the "Housing Needs Summary" of the document in order o clarify the relationship of the two needs asses nts. Mr. Lenard commented that staff is confide that the revised verbiage will satisfy HM, s con as Planning Commission Meeting June 21 1964 Agenda Item No. 3 CITY OF NEWPORT BF.A(-H TO: Planning COMinslon YFOM: Planning Department '.;Ur'fJECP: A. Resuhdivision No. 773 (Public Hearing) Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land into a single parcel for residential condominium purposen, and the. .1eceptance of an environmental document. AND 9- Ure Permit No. 3091 (Revised) (ilublic lie iL rnL) Request to permit the construction of a 4 unit residential condominium development and rel4t.ofl ynrayns on property located in the R-3 Distrirt, Tian propoual also includes a modification to the Zoninq 0rwI n no as to allow a reduced width for a proposed parking access drive in conjunction with extra wide garages. AND C. Residential Coastal Develo nt Pe mit NC,. B (D scusaion) Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 4 unit residential condominium devolopment pursuant to the Administrative Cuidelines for the implementation of the State I.4w relative to low -and -moderate income housing within the Coastal Zone. I.GCATION, Parcel 1 of Parcel Mal, 04-1 (Rersubdivixion !b. 403) located at 1319 Rant Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly side of Last Balboa Boulevard between "E" Street and "F" Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. MINE. R-3 APPLICANT: Pulaski and Arita, Newport Beach OWNER: Robert P. warmington, Costa Mesa ENGINEER/ AACHITFZri Saone as applicant ri TO: Ping Com■iission - 2. • Reckground At its se^ting of March 22, 1984, the Planning Cr. ission voted (b Ayes, 1 no) to deny the subject applications. Said action was subject tr, the findings set forth in the attached excerpt of the Planning Co mission minutes elated March 22, 1984. 'rho applicant subsequently appealed the decision of the Planning Cixrmission to the City Council. At its meeting of May 14, 1904, The City Council voted (all Ayes) to refer the applications tack to the 111nnning Commission so that the plans could be redesigned, Attached for the Planning Cossrrission's information is an excerpt of the City Council minutes for the subject applications dated May 14, 1904. Revised Applications The applicant has revised his previous use permit application which r►nw includes a request to construct a four unit rnnidential condominium development on property located in the 14-3 District which conforms to the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District ran the front one-half of they lot (i.e. ocean Bide), the 28/32 YcKlt Ile ight Limitation District on the rear one-half of the lot (i.e., street aide), and all required building setback requirements, including no garage encroachments in the 4 foot easterly side yard as originally proposed. The proposal does, however, include a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow a reduced width of a proposed parking access drive in conjunction with wider than standard garage parking spaces. Use permit procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.80 of the Municipal Code and modification procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.81 of said Code. (+or the purpose of establishing a four unit residential condominium development, the applicant is also requesting approval of a single lot resubdivision. Renubdivision procedures Are net forth in Section 19.12.040 of the Municipal Code. Conformance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan The Land Use Elements of the General Plan and the local Coastal plan designate the subject property for "Multi -gamily Residential" uses. The proposed development is a permitted use within this designation. Subject. Property and Surrounding Land times There are three older rental units located on the subject property at present which will be remmed prior to the construction of the proposed project. To the north, across Bast Balboa Boulevard, are single-family dwellingst to the east, are three 4-unit apartment buildings facing Last Balboa Boulevard and three single-fasrily dwellings to the rear of the fourplexes facing the public beachi to 1b TO: Pening Commission - 3. the south, is the public beach and the Pacific Oceant and to the west, is an older single family dwelling and the public beach. Additional Background At its meeting of June 21, 1973, the Planting Commission approve+! una Permit No. 1665 (4 Ayes, 2 Hoes, 1 Abstain) which was a rec{uent tat construct four apartment dwelling units on the subject property, to accordance with Emergency Ordinance No. 1490 which was in effect at the time, any new construction in the R-3 District on the► tinlboa Peninsula, other than uses permitted in the R-1 or R-1.5 District, required the securing of a use permit in each case. The action of the Planning Cosnission was subject to the four following conditionm of approvals 1. That development be in substantial conformance with the approved revised plot plan and elovationn, except for minor modirications approved by the Department of Community Develol,went. All development shall comply with the requirements of the 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District. 2. That a minimum five foot wide landscaped planter he located along FAnt Balboa Boulevard, except at the approved tan foot wide driveway. 3. That only architectural features such as cornices and raves (excluding fireplaces and chimneys) shall be permitted in the proposed five foot rear (Oceanside) yard setback. 4. That a resubdivision and parcel cap shall be filed. In accordance with Condition No. 4 above, the applicant filed a resubdivieion application in order to establish a single building site (Aesubdivision No. 403) which was approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of August 2, 1973. The approval of Resubdivision No. 403 was subject to the following conditionsi I. That Use Permit Application No. 1665 is approved by the City Council and all other conditions of the use permit are fulfilled. 2. That a parcel map be filed. At its meeting of August 13, 1973, the City Council considered an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission concerninq Use Permit No. 1665. After numerous continuances, the City Council overruled the action of the Planning Commission and denied (S Ayes, 2 Noes) Uae Permit No. 1665 at its meeting of December 17, 1973. In 1974, a second project was proposed for the subject property and the Planning Commission, at Ito July 18, 1974 meeting, approved an if TOs PlAg Comission - 4. amendment to Resubdivision No. 403 so as to delete Condition No. 1 as net forth above. At that time, there was considerable disco nxion rotated to the types of conditions which could be attached to the repsubdivision and the control which could be exercised over the design of a project through the resubdivision procedures. Such discussion wau due to the expiration of the emergency ordinance which previously required a use permit for multiple -family residential develolaent on the Balboa Peninsula, Said requirement no longer existod, and therefore, the only discretionary review by the City at that time wan kesubdivision No. 403 (Amended). The- Planninq Commission's approval of Resubdivision No. 40.1 (Am-n le(l) Wait subsequently appealed to the City Council by the Citixeenn to Protect Peninsula Point Environment. At the City Council Meeting of AuquRt 26, 1974, the City Council approved Resubdivision No. 403 (Amended) and an additional condition was Added that requirtK1 any future development of the site to be subject to the preparation r,f An environmental document and to be reviewed by the Planning e'oRaission And City Council. It should he noted that the parcel map approved in conjunction with Rnnutxlivision No. 403 (Amended) WAR turr,rded on Auqunt 12, 1976. ThariJores, the above referenred condition requiring both Planning Commission and City Council approval appiloo, to the current project as w"ll. In October 1974, a Modification application was filed with the City (Modification No. 0 55) which was a request to allow a 2 foot and 4 foot second floor deck encroachment into the 10 foot setback along the beach and an 6 foot encroachment into n 12 foot side yard setback, in conjunction with a five unit apartment development. It war. later determined by the Planning Commission that the modification for the R foot encroachment into the required 12 foot side yard setback way: not required inasmuch an the: Code provisions requiring such setback did not apply to the subject property. Inasmuch as the dovelopment of the site was subject to the acceptance of an environmental document and the automatic review by both the Planning Commission and the City Council by virtue of the condition placed on the property under Resubdivinion No. 403 (Amended), the Modifications Committee referred the application directly to the Planninq Commission without prior review or action by the Modifications Committee. On November 7, 1974, the Planning Commission accepted a Negative Declaration, and reccamended approval of Modification No. 855, subject to the following conditions: 1. That development shall he In substantial compliance with the rite plan and elevations as submitted, except AS noted below. 2. That the requested modification for the balcony encroachments into the ocean side setback be denied. 3. That all other provisions of the residential developmgnt atAndards and the R-3 District be met. 5 TO: PlIong Commission - S. • At its meeting of December 9, 1974, the City Council sustained the a!tion of the Planning Commission and approved Modification No. 855, subject to an additional condition that required the developer tc, Ilse l)rivate property only for the storing of building materials in conjunction with the subject protect. The above referenced litoject watt liltimately denied by the Coastal Comission on March 29, 19'i(,, rnvirnnmental Significance After an Initial Study was prepared, it was determined that this project will not have any significant environmental impact, a M a 110(lative Declaration has been prepared and is attached for Commission review. Coantnl Residential Develo ent Pertsit No. R This application is a request to consider a Coastal liat,idii,-iai r)rvelopment Permit to establish project compliance with tiles C:ty'ss Administrative Cuidelinru (Policy P-1) for the implementestiun ()f :,tate i,nw relative to low- and moderate -income housinq in the ConatAl Zone, City Council Policy P-1 states the following; 1. Require the replacement of low -and -moderate income houninq units in the Coastal Zone which are lost as a result of demolition, subject to certain feasibility criteria. ?. Require that new housing developments in the Coastal 'Lone include housing for low -and/or -moderate income households whore feasible. Inasmuch as the subject property is presently developed with three low -and -moderate income housing units and the proposed condominium project involves more than three units, the Planning Comminsion =ust determine the feasibility of requiring the inclusion of dwelling units affordable to persons or families of low -and -moderate income and/or the feasibility of replacing existing low -and -moderate income units lost due to the new construction project. In order to determine the feasibility of requiring affordable housing in conjunction with the proposed project, staff has contracted with Tarantello t Company of Newport Beach to provide this analysis. A copy of this report is attached for consideration by the Commission. The report provides an analysis of return on investment with the protect, including one mods rate- incomq unit in one of the four now residential units. It is the opinion of the convultant that the provision of one moderate -income unit on site is not feasible. ar TO: Plong Comission - 6. Analysis The applicant proposes to construct a four unit residential condominium project with related garages on the subject property. The following outline identifies the major characteristics of the proposed development, as revised. Land Area; (202.42' x 451) Number of units: Permitted by Zoning Code (i.e. 9,108.9 sq. ft. r 1,200 sq. ft. - 7.59) Proposed Setbacks: Arrr: i red Front (East Balboa Boulevard) q' Westerly side 40 Easterly side 4+ Rear (ocean side) 10' 9,108.9 ny. ft, Buildable Area (lot area less setbacks): 3 X Buildable Area (permitted in the R-3 District by Code); Previous Gross Structural Areas (Original Project) Excluding Garages (permitted in R-3 District) Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit D TOTAL: Floor Area Ratio: 2,140 t sq. ft. 2,706 1 sq. ft. 1,845 1 sq. ft. 11967 1.sq; it. 8,659 1 sq. ft. 1.21 X Buildable Area 7 units 4 units Pr sold 4' for btiildlnq and 0' for 6' h 1 f1h wall and gate 4' and 21'-4" for living arena and garages 4' for living area and garages 10, 7,119.5 sq. ft. 21,358 sq. ft. Including garages 2,520 t sq. ft. 3,086 t sq. ft. 2,225 t rq. ft. 2p347 ! aq. ft. 10,178 1 sq. ft. 1.43 X Buildable Area TO: Pl ng Comission - 7. • Proposed Gross Structural Area: Excludin2 Garages (permitted in R-3 District) Unit A 2,092 t sq. ft. Unit B. 2,166 1 sq. ft. unit C 1,816 t sq. ft. Unit D 1,816 t sq. ft. TC1TAL s 7,890 2 sq. ft. Floor Area Ration Parking: 1.11 X Buildable Area Including garages 2,492 2 sq. ft. 2,566 1 sq. ft. 2,216 1 sq. ft. 2,216 1 !S.. ft. 9,490 t sq. ft. 1.33 X Buildable Area Required: (1.5 spaces per d.u.) 6 spaces Proposedr (2 garage spaces per d.u.) 0 spaces Open Space: key;aired: 6,216 cu. ft. Proposed: in excess of 85,526 cu. ft. Building Height Permitted: 24/28 Foot Height Limitation District on the ocean side, one-half of the lots 28/32 root Height Limitation District on the street side, one-half of the lot. Proposed: (1) 28 feet to the highest portion of a flat roof on the rear (street side) of the lots and 24 feet average roof height (and 28 feet: to the top of the pitched roof) on the front (ocean side) of the lot. In addition, the former open architectural features that exceeded the allowable height limits have been eliminated. �1) As shown on the attached plans, it si p ppears that portions of the proposed building slightly exceed the basic height limit on both the front and rear half of the lot. Staff has discussed this with the applicant who has indicated the proposed building will be redesigned so as to comply with the basic height limits. The proposed development conforms with all applicable develo;ment standards in the R-3 District, except for the modification to the Zoning Code for dimensions of garage spaces and garage accessi and Building Code requirss:ents discussed below. Parking Design The applicant's original plans included the request for three, two car garages along the easterly side of the property which encroached 4 feet into the required 4 foot side yard setback area. Each of the rubject two car garages maintained a clear width of 18 feet (where the A3 TO.t Plong Ctsssission - S. • Municipal Code required only 17 feet 6 inches), a clear depth of 19 feet (meeting Code requirements) and an aisle width of 25 feet (where the Municipal Code only required a 24 foot wide aisle). As indicated on the attached revised plot plan, the three, two car garages now maintain the required 4 foot side yard setback. This redesign has reduced the vehicular access aisle width to 211-4" on the 45 foot wide parcel. The applicant has requested a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the use of the narrow aisle in conjunction with wider parking spaces. The width of the subject three two car garages have been widened to 20 feet each, inside dimension. Staff has no objections with the applicant's request, inasmuch as this concept of a "sliding scale" design has been approved by the Planning Cossaission and the Modifications Committee in the past on other projects. The fourth two car garage on the site, located adjacent to the westerly side yard setback, maintains the original width of le feet and a depth of 19 foot, inside dimensions. Auildin Codo Requirements As indicated on the attached floor plans, the applicant it proposing third floor living areas in two of the proposed units. In accordance with the provisions of the uniform Building Code (1979 Edition), third floor living areas are required to maintain two independent stairways to the ground floor. Fair -share Contributions The City has adopted an Ordinance regarding fair -share contributions for improvements to the circulation system. The Ordinance includes a specific fee schedule established by the City Council. A condition regarding fair -share has been included for this project. in accordance with the Pair Share Ordinance, the contribution is based on the net increase in dwelling units. In this case, the increase in dwelling unit is one; therefore, the fair -share contribution is $1,103.05. Specific Findings and Recummendation section 20.80.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. in addition, Section 20.73.025 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code also provides that the planning Commission shall make specific findings in order to approve a use perrsit for a condominium project and Section 19.12.020 (D) provides that the Commission shall make specific findings in order to approve a resubdivision. TO PlA*ng Commission - 9. Staff recommends approval of the subject applications and suggest& that the Planning Comission take such action, subject to the findings and conditions of approval set forth in the attached exhibit "A", should the Planning Commission with to deny the subject applications, staff recommends that this itsmi be continued to the meeting of July S, 1984, so as to allow staff time to prepare findings for denial. PLANNING DBPARIXI.Mi' JAMBS D. HEWICKXR, DIRFX. OR By �- } A PAZ dkr� - K. -William WarC 04z. Senior Planner WWW/dvh Attachmentar exhibit "A" Vicinity Map Excerpt of Planning COnmivaian minuten dated March 22, 1984 Excerpt of City Council minutes dated May 14, 1984 Negative Declaration Report from Tarantello i Company Letter from Balboa Peninsula Point Association to the City Council Plot Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations A15" TOs P16ing Commission - 10. • EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CDMDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR RESUBDIVISION NO. 773, USE PERMIT NO. 3091 (Revised) AND RESIDENTIAL COASTAL DEVELOPS PERMIT NO. a (June 21, 1984) A. ENVIRONMENTAL aoCtAl m 1. Approve the Negative Declaration and supportive Materials theretoi 2. Recommend that the City Council certify that the Environmental Document is comepletei and 3. Ka.ke the Findings listed belowl Findings,t 1. That the environmental document is complete and han been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CPYJA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of the environmental document have been considered on the various decisions on this project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible Mitigation measures discussed in the Environmental Document have been incorporated into the proposed project. 4. That the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study have been incorporated into the proposed project and are expressed as Conditions of Approval. S. That based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, Negative Declaration and supportive materials thereto that if the mitigation measures are incorporated into the project it will not have a significant adverse I.Wact on the environment. B. RESUBDIVISION NO. 773 Approve Resubdivision Imo. 773 with the rindings and subject to the Conditions listed belowr rindingse 1. -Tfiat the findings regarding the environmental document alma apply to Pesubdivision No. 773. 701 PlSnq cossaission - 12. 10 3. The project complies with all applicable standards, plans and zoning requirements for new buildings applicable to the district in which the proposed project is located at tho time of approval, except for the width of tha proposed access drive. 4. The project lot size conformn to the zinlny Code area requirements in effect at the tism of approval. 5. The project is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the General Plan, and the Adopted Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. 6. That adequate on -site parking spaces are available for the proposed residential condominium development. 7. That the reduced width of the propr,nnc] vehicular access drive is acceptable in conjunr;tion with wider than standard garage parking spaces on the 45 foot wide parcel. B. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use of building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 9. That the proposed building will be designed in full casipliance with the height limitations of the 24/28 foot Height Limitation District on the front one-half of the lot, and of the 20/32 Foot Height Limitation District on the rear one-half of the site, and further that said building is of comparable height to the Adjoining single family dwelling easterly of the subject property (i.e., 28 feet t for the proposed developaent and 32 feet s for the existing structure). 10. The proposed use of a narrow vehicular access aisle will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to Property and improvewnts in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and further that the proposed modification in consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. Tai Ping commission - 11. • Z. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the lrewport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances Of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Coas<ission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 3. That the proposed resubdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 4. That the site is physically suitable rc,r the type Of development proposed. 5. That the site is physically suitable for the Proposed density of development. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvement@ will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for accesa through or use of property within tha proposed subdivision. Condition:_ 1. That a parcel map be filed. Z. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 3. That each dwelling unit be served with an Individual water aervice and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 4. That the proposed development shall be reviewed by the City Council as required by the approval of Resubdivision No. 403 (Amended). C. USE PERMIT NO. 3091 (Revised) Approve Use Permit No. 3091 (Revised) with the Findings and subject to the Conditions as listed below: rindingsI 1. That the findings regarding the environmental document also apply to Use Permit No. 3091 (Revised). • That each of the proposed units has been designed as a condminium with separate and individual utility Connections. TO Pl1ng Comission - 13. is 11. That the proposed development will generate an I rease in daily trips sufficient in magnitude to warrant a fair -share assessment to mitigate the increased traffic congestion and traffic noise resulting from the cumulative affect of &Mitional traffic generated by the residential development. Conditionst �I 1. That development shall be In sui,stantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor glens, and elevations, except as noted below. 2. That the proposed third floor living areas shall be revised so as to be in conformance with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code (1979 Wition). This conditir,,i will necessitate a second stairway from the third level living areas to the ground level. 3. That two on -site garage spaces shall be provided for each unit. 4. That all conditions of approval of Resubdivision No. 773 be fulfilled. 5. Should any resources be uncovered during construction, a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and in accordance with City Policies x-6 and x-7. 6. Pinal design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water -saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 7. That a grading plan if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to aminisii:e any potential im;Pacts from silt, debris and other water pollutants. 9. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site ad a watering and sweeping program designed to minimimo impact of haul operations. 9. An erosion and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department. 10. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Hater Quality Control board - eta An& Region, and the plan be submitted to said board tan days prior to any construction activitiee, ss■ A TO: ^nnIng CcMission - 24. . 11. That the proposed development shall be reviewed by the City Council as required by the approval of Resubdivision No. 403 (Amended). 12. That the proposed residential development shall sleet the provisions of Section 20.11.020, a., of the Newport Beach Municipal Code as to permitted building heights in the R-3 District on the Aalboa Peninsula. 13. That the proposed security gate shall be equipped with an automatic opening and closing device or said gate shall maintain a Minims setback of 20 feet measured from curb line. 14. Prior to the issuance of Building and Grading Permits, the applicant shall pay Lair -Share for circulation system improvements and noise walls as established by Ordinance. D. RESIDERNAI. COASTAL DEVEL40PMENT PERMIT Pao. 8 Approve Residential Coastal Developc*nt Permit No. 8 subject to the following Findings and subject to the following Conditions Fitt I. That based upon the information presented to the City, if four new units were to be developed on -site, it is infeasible to provide an affordable housing unit on -site or off -site. 2. That the development of this site is not exempt from the provisions of State Law relative to low and moderate income housing units within the Coastal zone. 3. That it is not necessary to provide affordable housing related to this application on -site or off -site. Conditions 1. That all conditions of ResubdiviSion No. 773 and Use Permit No. 3092 (Revised) shall be fulfilled. AfAAF NEWPORT :sRs s�•i�sss�r 1001, AV i L% 5 DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH -- CALIFORNIA m a~ ,fte m al. aw IMP l Aou CAU 0 March 22, 19e4 . i+r+mxts ity of Newport Beach A. Resubdivision No. 773 (Continued Public Hearing) Item 43 Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land into P sub- a single parcel for residential condominium purposes, division and the acceptance of an environmental document, No.3 AND B. Use Permit No. 3091 (Continued Public Haarinal Request to permit the construction of a four unit residential condominiums development on property located In the R-3 District which exceeds the 24 foot basic height limit located in the 24/20 rnat Height Limitation District on the front one -halt of the lot. The prOpoeal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so as to allow the proposed ground floor garages to encroach 4 feet into the required 4 loot easterly side yard setback area. a C. Residential Coastal DOV91opm@nt Permit No. e (Discussion) Request to consider o Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a four unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the Implementation of State Law relative to low - and -moderate Incosms housing within the Coastal Zone. LO AVONs parcel 1 of Parcel Map 84-1 (Resubdlvision No. 403) located at 1319 Cast Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly side of East Balboa Boulevard between 'E' Street and "T' Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. ZONCm R-3 APPLICANRs Pulaski and Arita, Newport beach OMMLRm Rnbert P. Maraington, Costa Mama ENIGINN W WNITECTs flame as applicant -21- and Ilse Permit NO ]09l and Koaide_ntial_ Coastal Y Deve l opaie n t Permit No. H ALL 0CN I E D 4 V. 0 March 22, 19e4 • Me: E. 1 The public hearing opened in connection with this items and Mr, holly Pulaski, the applicant, appeer� before the Commission. the stated that the proposed request would not be inconsistent or detrisental to the surrounding area. Hs stated that the current zoning of property the allows for eight units, whareas the proposed project is requesting only four units, which is well below the buildable area of the site. He stated that the proposed project soots all of the setback requirements, with the exception of the easterly setback. Further, he stated that the proposed project will be providing more garages and open space than In required, including public open "Co. Mr. Pulaski stated that the easterly side yard encroachments are necessary for the deaign of the enclosed garage spaces. However, he ntstefl that by widening the garage spaces to 10 feet, and Permitting a 20 foot wide driveway instead of the required 24 foot width, the encroachments would not be necessary. He stated that this alternative would be acceptable. Mr. Pulaski stated that property is unique because of the location and the size of the lot. He stated that one-half of the site is in conformance with the height restriction. He stated that the total project averages approximately 28 feet in height, which allows for a more desirable architectural treatment of the development. He then requested approval of the proposed development. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Wells, Mr. Pulaski stated that the alley adjacent to the project is a private alley and not a public right_ Of -way. Mr. Pulaski stated that it would be difficult to negotiate with the six property owners and reciprocal useaents for the use of the private alley. Mr. TOM PeAdal, resident of 1565 ocean •oulevard, and Vice-president of Salboa Peninsula Point Association, appeared before the C mwission. no stated that the Association has voted unanimously to the proposed project because of theballdlr height, setbacks setbacks and that the proposed structure ro+uld be disproportionate and out of scale with neighboring properties. He also expressed his cor4orn that approval of the proposed project would be prat setting. -22- ~E5 r March 22, 1964 • ~E5 � r x • . 3 a : il a City of t Beach FJW C/W I I I I I if In response to a question posed by Coasissioner Goff, Mr. Pandel stated that a three unit development be be more commendable which would not exceed the hw1ul limit and create lase traffic. Planning Director Newicker submitted a letter dated of 1323 !: March 22, 1. from Mr. i mrs. John Wallace, residents Balboa Boulevard, requesting that the Project be denied. Their letter expressed concern■ relating to the setbacks and height of the proposed project. Mr. Andrew Dossett, resident of 1305 Y.. Balboa Boulevard, submitted the letter from the Balboa Peninsula Point Association requestinq dental of the proposed project. Ne also submitted a petition containing lb ■ignatures of neighbors opposed to the project and two photographs of the existing structures in the area. He stated that granting the proposed modifications would be inconsistent with the existing uses and would set a precedence for future redevelopment in the area. He also expressed his concern with the row of vehicles which will be parking in the driveway. Ms. Lillian Kamph, owner of property at 021 t. Ocean Front, stated that she resides in the adjacent structure which was constructed four feet in excess of the height Limit. She stated that exceeding the height limit destroys the visual sense of the neighborhood. She stated that redevelopment in the area should contain a low profile and not be allowed to exceed the height limit. Mr. Charles Cotten, resident of 15o9 East gay Avenue, expressed his concern with the existing parking s problemof the, area. He stated that the residents of the proposed project will not park their vehicles in the driveway, they will park their vehicles in the street and convert their garages into playrooms. He also expressed his concern with the fire haxard which would be created with the proposed eracro&chwnts. -23- MMMS � r r � it V C-1h Mare 22, 1904 . Mr. Berney Larks. resident of 1901 beryl Lena, expressed his concern that the proposed request will demolish three existing low and moderate -income rental units and be replaced with a four unit oondminium development. He stated that one of the new units should be required to be affordable. He stated that the need for affordable housing must be addrvss.d by the City. He stated that he represents a large group Of senior citizens within the comunity. Ms. Barbara Pottharst, resident of llol S. Balboa Boulevard, stated that the landmark in the area is the ocean and the bay, not the architectural design of the buildings. She requested that the proposed modifications be denied. Mr. Pulaski Mated that the design of the proposed request greatly reproves the existing iniress and egress of the site and also exceed■ the required parking. He stated that the project can acaom■odate the height requirement with flat roofs, rather than pitched roofs and the side yard setback can be accommodated as stated previously. Commissioner Rurlander asked if the garages can be constructed, maintaining the required four foot setbacks. Mr. Pulaski concurred and stated that it is also possible to reduce the height of the proposed development. COMISsioner Balalis stated that the majority of the redevelopment of the area has been occurring as single family residential development. He expressed his concern that this particular piece of property is not appropriately zones! as R-3. He stated that he objects to the bulk and the height of the proposed project. He further stated that other developments in the area are detached, whereas the proposed project will create a massive bulk development. He stated that he could possibly support a project of two separate structures, zoned as R-1 on each parcel. He recemmmuMed that the project be denied and that the applicant be directed to redesign the project to incorporate the concerns which have boon expressed. Purther, he stated that it my be appropriate for the City to take action to resoae the Party and to include a finding in the denial of the PrOi*ct that the 11-3 zoning is not suitable for this area. -24- Alpr 3s Motion Ayes Was • March 22, 19e4 • M"MS #tl d Newport Beach Ix 1c I I X1X11 In response to a question posed by COM"610110r Person, Mr. Robert Cabriale, Assistant City Attorney, stated that it would not be appropriate to include a finding which states that the R-3 soninq is not suitable for the area. Notion was wade to deny Res'Abdivision No. 773, Use Permit No. 1091 and Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 8, subject to the following findings of Exhibit 'A", which MOTION amrol A- EXVI RO1KVITAL DOCUKE T 1. Take no action on the Initial Study and Negative Declarationj 2. Recommond that the City Council take rno action on the environmental documents and 3. Make the findings listed below: rindingas 1. That the environmental docuarnt is complete and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CagA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy, 2. That the contents of the environsjsntal docent have been considered on the various decisions on this project. 3. That the Guidelines indicate that environmental documents are not required for projects that are denied. S. RESUNDIVISION NO. 773 Deny Resubdivision No. 773 with the findings listed be low i Findings's 1. That the findings regarding the environsatal documnt also apply to AGOWWvlsim go. 773. -25- 0 �m � r s sr figs wou CAU • March 22, 1984 • 2. That the approval of Rssubdivieion Mo. 773 would nots under the circumstances of this particular case, be beneficial to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persona residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed project. 3. That the proposed resubdivision in conjunction with the subject development proposes problems from a Planning standpoint. C. Use permit No. 3091 Deny Use Permit No. 3091 with the windings listed belovi Findings 1. That the findings regarding the environmental docvwent also apply to Use Permit no. 3091. 2. That the height and bulk of the proposed structure will create an undesirable, abrupt scale relationship with existing surrounding development inasmuch as the proposed structure is substantially larger and taller than most development in the area. 3• That the Proposed development will not result in more public visual open space and viers inam uch as the Proposed project is built across the lull width of the site adjacent to the public beach. 4. That the proposed 4 foot garage encroachments into the required 4 foot easterly side yard setback are Inappropriate and represent a significant departure from established standards for development in the R-3 District. S. That the approval of the proposed aide yard encroachments would establish an u0sslrable P"K0504t that would affect future residential dsyslopmsat on the Balboa penLwmU. -26- 1MM►JEs 0 IN lurch 22, 198E MWES �ggx ri City, NaAJXwt Beach �c d• The proposed side yard encroachment@ will, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detriasntal to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of ouch proposed uae and be detrimental or injurious to property and improvesrmnts in the neighborhood of the goner&, welfare of the City and further that the proms" modification is not consiotent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code. 7. The approval of Use Permit No. 3091 and related applications will, under the circumwtances of this came be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing and working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to Property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. C. RESIPUTIAL COASTAL. DEVEL0Pi0:'ItP PERMIT No. 9 Deny Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 8 with the rindings listed belowt Findings, 1. That the findings regarding the environmental document also apply to Residential Coastal Permit No. 8. 2. That Residential Coastal Development Permits are not required for projects that are denied. -27- CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ~u that war* hrewght o%t is the staff report in as attnpt for a better srdares etidtas of the duality sad nature of the project, In relationship to what can 1e allowed ea the property. :r. Pulaski We granted Iva additional tiwtas fat hie summary. iM stated that the allowd drnelty on thla project is 1+ wits (they are providing 4)i parking required Is t (they are providing B is garagee)i shay rant all of the setback rejuiresaunta. or sacaed than ssravt for one, which is one of the escepttone cosffimsatsd 6a by City staff toalght; open space that to Fronded Is this design is 10 a anre than to rgelrad; and It to a very low density sad Iw sarely■ project. Mr. rulsakt added that the project does. im fact. exceed the height llaltatton for --halt Of the lots the pnrcion of the lot that to on the *traffic allow a ?M M it. hafgkt limitation; the ocean side is .428. Their deafen provides for as OYera90 Of 23 ft. height throughout the project end. In their optnicm, enhaacas the archttectwl character. The asceptisae that are cited to justify that last polat are included In the Planning cosoffiisolon staff rapart. Itr, ptilaakt was granted as additional Minute. 1• "amm"91010, Mr, Pulaski said that at the pleating CaaMIesion hearing, he stated the two exceptions his client has asked for can ►e rat; they could redesign the project to wet the regtitrrrsnta of the city and the Planning coessleaion, giYea norm tire. but the pwhllr Wart" wa Closed, and the project wee denied. John Joasen, 1103 C. ISM" Blvd.. addrsased the Cowtcil. Stating that In addttlor is the "$&a polluttoe and Congeattos, eke quality of life of the restdamtat tiro live at the narrowst part of the raslnswla, the neckt is threstaasd it the city eats►lushes a pfaeedent h greatlag such see rescttwt e. Tolwra 34 - page 144 U/p )"I/ asw► Jil/ adatl par• (6 0 aourtcIL Memo= CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH b 14. is" Lllltae 1-*&. 1310 1!, ocaew pront. awldcsesed the Cawswcil. srattag that mere ais I-1-Y famOt a similar altMttoe. smd Mau Mr. pttlaskl stared him tllerc la rtltld to 1 welts, sew Chop ars duly sabiq far a. be calls mertag It ems 1,65 that 946 rsreeN, but the rsridrmcs got it doe to 4. lbo (wrther ata144 that aproetwstely 11 Isms* aim the resldamss fought to brly the height lialtatta.t dew* from 2S sad )a to" to 24 foot. dad to have these reotristtlame reversed sew is wwfeeslble. rim muted, seotiar eery UVortant polat Is that at the flamatag Comieston boarleg there wrs tastlaooy airy to the shoat that this is as 1-1 area, and it Is a eery Cagpstod area. Why arsm't they hrpn attb brlldt" an it-1 to the fnsst, and so 1-2 to the back? She dddN that CLOY keys been turned dues by tie Caeatal cocsataslan an a t+-randesial.r unit. esd 14 have been terra des Iiww and tie. *Sala. poliowtog dlecusetas. Planning Diractor Jars sewtel4r, commented that if there to to he a IadestSA of the project, staff will re"Irs roe time In order to awalased the protect a" prepare a staff r*"gt for Catecil, or planning C440Ltsetos 9oe41144ration, the history w this sits gew back to 1912 dad 1117 at the tins what the City apsnt a teeeidstabla aae.rt of time trying to get a project 44e16te4 for this site, thick sot sely met the coaeorwa of the flasattag c�lsatom add Cho city "met's bwC also to mast the coneeres sf the Ceeotai C.sasladloe. further. Chat tkr /lasl atewbllmg block in the ►"'co— ws *Me the protect was awrsrrd by the coastal CoMldslon. the CaMisetao Save Its libel negative rote, bncmwre they wasted a change to camdswtat�n coeversim. Mr. S wicker added that at that time. that, was a )-welt ►rojsct prevosed for the site. end there wu to be 2-Malts, as the stresse and a slash• mair ew the beechfreet to ter and deals* m froject that sere er lass lit tLO character of the astatine seltibherhoad, Miter it wee datsrulned that eo one ale, staked to .dares• the Ceunell, the gellto Meerut we cl000d. Dtmcirnele/ *seed. retarding the slalue of tho Saa,dtdl►idtsa, wherein planalmg Iltrseter Jaweo timriehet stated that seswulelatmw Tll wa approved sad %law 14 - rage 1*! �U 1 hill It Perm cauMcil` yes CITY Of NEWPORT ®EACH \8J YIM1 " '/ Iiq I4. 11i+1 S. "r Sort opened the public hearing "dit ► IK City Cogeetl ravl*w_cf.an A1►M ITd4b MAIL[ AND AIITAs ■*.port Math, frogMsll the denial of the ►lamming Cowd "low oa vArek 22, 1964. oft 4104 sABMIT1llOM 50. 717 - A request to rsoebdtrtda as existing patcal of lead. located at 1314 tart Balbo4 Boulevard. fate a Single parcel for residential taadomialum ►arposes and tha acceptance of so tavtrommestal Document; AIM U19 ?MIT 00, 1041 - A taqueet to pa welt the construction of a four volt reatdsmtisl comdontatum devslopwent on property located in the 8-1 District w%lch ercooda the 14 toot basic height limit as the front one -halt at the lot Is the 24128 root Weight Llattottoo District. The proposal Stan lutl44ee a modtlicatto& to the Soning Code so as go allow the propead ground floor psrageo to encroach four feet into the required tear loot saatorly side yard setback at"I AXD tUIDUTIAL 00"TAL DIv[LO►M= ►RaXIT 110. 1 - A re" et to coeatdsr a Reeldemttal Coastal Development remit far the ►urpose of establishing project cowpliawee for a tour unit residential cem4owisiun development pursuant to the Adataistrative culdeltnas for the t+*I meatatt*s of stat* Law telstive to leW- And wod4ratS-taeoma houslag Within the Coastal Zone. Bsport from the Planning Departmrat. W40 presented. Appeal 4pplicatloa of Rally ►ul6ski, use presest44. The City Clark announced the, allot the *900* was ►ri*tad, letters from Archie and Phyllis Lock& 8*4 Locos and q le Eggs srppertimg 468141. were received. Kelly hlaskl. $120 Birch street, Architect for the Wniagto* project. &ddreseed the Councll stating that Aa the project was dented at the ►lasml*p Casnmisatom level. he conferred ritk his client. SA/ they felt that the owly Joet action was to appeal to the Citr CoWmcil, and aghaata* some of the facts volume 39 - ►440 143 41. aouNcIL Vnf� CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH r \N00S\'e# lfsy 14. 1$" L1ULa Kano. 1320 Z. Otems yromt. addressed the Cateril. Stating that yMTo aim they (owehc s similar •Ittrtlse, and ww" Mr. rmlaakt @rates h1s client Is entitled to 1 umlt@, and they see only asking for +, he Salt@ "ad 14 was l,gS that was n luoed, lee the nuts get It does to ;. Shin farther stated that approximately IS years See the residents loaght to ►floe the height liallatl@e down from 2/ and 30 ts*t to 21 test. Sad to have theme rsatslcttoms fevermed sea la unfeaalhle. am ststsde smother very Importsut point Is that at the rlammlae COM10910s hsarlmg thrrs wan test/smey elves to th@ affect that this is am 1-1 area. and It Is a Tory coageeted area. Why aren't 1Ley happy Wlth balUtog se 1-1 1n the (route and so 14 U the bath? she Sk*d that than bars t+a*a turned down by the coastal c4lsoloo an a 4-cos4oelssu6 Omit. Sad fh*y have heel tOrnrd Inca film ead time again. rollowiag dl@tussiom. llauats+ Director James kvtekar, counted that if thee* IS co ba a T*demlgn of the project. staff will rotrasre sours time tit order to svmlante tho project sad pr@Psfs a @tart report for coussll. or Planning Carla@son tossldaratioe. The history on this site sots Lack to 1912 and 1113 at the ties wham the City @Pent a coaalda:ahle amowat of time trying to sot a project dnsigmed for this mite, which sot only met the concerns of the riamatsg Canlaalas end the City Council, het also to Met the coscerse at this Coastal Cowleslos. ►urth*r, that 16* final stumbling block sa the procese was when the project was eppreved by the Coastal caOmleaion. the Commalseton gave Its steel segative vote. hataume they wasted a cheats to coedoalatum converalos. lac. lewicker added that at that tier. there was s 3-enJt project propsaSd (or the site. and there sou to his 2-units oa the street@ sad a assets unit os the bachsroat to try and merles a ptoj@ct that Mrs or loss tit the character of the ""Snag eelghhochood. Alcor It Woe determined that so one also wtahrd to eddra*a the Council. the Public hearing was closed. Dlacuala se @nSued. regarding the @tutu@ •t the AssddtvlmIM. wh*fata ►leashes Director Jaws xMicker stated that r+sr<kdlvtSsoe 113 Was approved end volume is - rest 145 911 )" b Me" llll Asia l l to is to ca,llcx 10011� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 'o no � fir �` � �•• ..,.SA��7 Mey t�. l4dA �lurrs 3. Rbyor hart s►er/ the Nhlic hearing am/ /► ik City Ce.rall revtw of as APPBAL AT orb PKAMU AMAIITA. Mwprt Beech. from at the dental of tM VLaaslag Cossisslos sm s Ibrt% 220 1964. all 161/841 RlBtM1111111110M M). M - A regueat to rewAdlvtde as existing parcel of land. located at 1311 Last Beth" soulevard. late a @falls parcel for residential cumdnmiatem perpones end the acceptance of an rivtroeratal Docnwt= An USA nMUT MC. YAL - A request to permit tbm tasetrwctton of a four unit reeldemtiel camdemts:wm development an property located in the R-3 District w\ich estoeds the 24 foot basic height Batt w the frost one -ball of the lot Is the li/=s lent Bolght Limitation District. TM proposal also includes a medlflcatloa to the Zeaing Code no as to a11sn the proposed greu»d floor pragse to smcrosch foot foot into the required ha foes essrerly side yard setback areal Am MtVVnT L COASTAL DZVZLOPML1fT PI=1t1T MD. A - A request to consider a Residential Coastal Development permit Per the purpose of establishing project compliance for a four unit residential coedamtatum developmest pursuant to the Admiaistrattw Culdellnes for the ta♦lemsscattw of State Law relative to low- sad modorate-iscoso housing within the Coastal Zone. Report from the P14MIRS Department, was presented. Appeal application of Rally Pwlaskt, roe prosented. Tke [Sty Clock saaoueced IMF after the spode sea prlatod, letters from Archie aad Phyllis Locke asd Leona and Rr10 444 o.pprtiy denial, were received. sally hlaeki. $120 Birth street. Wthitac= for the YentsBtou project, eMreoeed tiro Qftaeil stating that as the project wu denied at the Planning Cewtselsa level. he eonforrod with his atiemt. sad they felt that the only jeer actf;" was to appeal to the City Council. sad aghsetse some of the facto Volume 34 - Pap 143 a. Tll/ Peru 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MCMMM 6WITU •o n �• �► !nt t Pu f y♦'� �i► Kay 14, 1184 Mottos Alt ayes s recofdod is 11I2-1911, with a coadttlw tMt any dovnlopmest os the Property umsll be review" by the Planning Commission and city Council. with !in deem estatiett. At this plat. Mr. Pulaski consented to a rabearlog by the Plosafa6 Cosmtsotoa. Itotlas we undo to rotor the subject ptajoct back to the Planning cowslsstas. - 6. "avow Marrt ojeaed tU jib le Marine City cetretl review aft COF91AL PLAN AMMOMM 110. 81-1(c) - UA Request of NtLTZIM laTMRISIS, Los M) Angeles, for as amendment to the Nrrport ` Maeh consist Plan for property located adjacent to MMICAL 1AX1, so as to edoalgnAte said property from "Mtltlple Family Raoideattst" mesa to "Adeinlotrativo. Professional, sad Piamseial Coumerctalo meen, and the acceptance of an Iavtr*MM#%tal Documost; 1 AJQ PLANNING COMIISSION AMDOKIMT 110. 601 PCA 441 (ORDINAMCS NO. 6;-15) - A request to srsd Portions of Districting Maps No. 22 sad 25'e0 ss to reclassify property described os Tract No. 11010 from the R-) (2176) District to the A-P Districti \An TRAFFIC STUDY \A request to consider s Traffic Std) Traffic Study !n con}unctlen with the toaatruetion of s- M A00 sq. It. medical office bulldiagi ` AM CIATIPICATIOM OF CORRLCTIOrt rot TRACT C&ctticrctn 00. 11010 - A request to consider a ?f 11016 Certificate of Correction for t►o pravlouely-recerdod mop of Tract fio. 11016 to as to come" all reforesces oe said map as to being far teoidontlal eoadostaiw Purposes and the removal of a secondary Private drive oa�SmPerior AV~; AND OSZ PKINIT PD. 3061 - A rogwet o v/r M41 permit the cowntructtoo of a three-story (U) Medical office building sad related give -jowl parking structure that ascend■ the )2 ft. ►salt height llmft fig Volume Is - rage 146 Krt,�l L t Lui U1RAT I ON TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: pLAMITKG DgpAIRTMUT im Tenth Street Mn OF NZWORT REACH Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. sox 1768 [] Clerk of the Board of NCWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8915 Supervisors P. 0. Box 687 NAME OF PROJECT: Kesubdivision No, 773 z se erm Coastal Development Pernit No. 8 PROJECT LOCATION: 1319 E. Balboa Blvd. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See Attached FINDING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council Policy K-3 pertaining to Procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Comaittee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES: Stye Attached INITIAL STUDY PREPARED BY: City of Newport Beach 1141TIAL STUDY AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT: HATE RECEIVED FOR FILING: 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach, CA Patricia mp o V, 4 Envirorwnui Coordinator Date: {rr + -9 - PROJECT MSCRIPTIoIi SUBJECT: A. Resubdivizion No. 773 (public !!!—A n ) Request to resubdivide an existing parcel of land into a single parcel for residential condominium purposes, and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Use Permit No. 30gl (Revised){Public licit riI ) Request to permit the construction of n 4 unit residential condominium development and relatedi garages on property located in the R-3 District. Tho proposal also includes a modification to the Zoning Code so an to allow a reduced width for a proposed parking access drive in conjunction with extra wide garages. AND C. Residential Coastal Develo nt Permit no. n (Discussion) Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development permit for the purpose of establishing project ccxapliance for a 4 unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to low -and -moderate income housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATION: Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 94-1 (Resubdivision No. 403) 101;4ttd at 1319 East Balboa Boulevard, on the southerly side of East Balboa Boulevard between "E" Street and "V" Street, on the Balboa Peninsula. 0 MITIGATION KL%SURZs RLSMIVISION No. 773, USE PEfMSIT 11o. 3091 (Rovised) AM RLSIDbrrM COASTAL DEVELOPN=r PP.RNIT NO.9 1. Should any resources be uncovered during construction, a qualified archaeoloylst or paleontologist shall evaluate the site prior to completion of construction activities, and in accordance with City policies K-6 and K-7. Z. rinal design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water saving devices for project lavatories and other water -using facilities. 3. That a grading plan if required, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities, to minimize any potential impacts from milt, debris and other water pollutants. 4. The grading permit shall include, if required, a description of haul routes, access points to the site and a watering and sweeping program designed to minimise impact of haul operations. 5. An erosion and dust control plan, if required, shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the building Department. 6. That an erosion and siltation control plan, if required, be approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region, and the plan be submitted to said Board ten days prior to any construction activities. 7. Prior to the issuance of Building and Grading Permits, the applicant shall pay rair-Share for circulation system improvements and noise walla as established by Ordinance. 91 ■.- 0 rebruary B, 1964 Mr, Robert P. Lenard Advance Planning Administrator Community pevelopeunt pepertment C 17V Of NCYPOR T BEACm 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California IZALI RE: GA"SA • COMOOMINIIMIS -- 1.17 E. BALAOA BLVD., BALL A pRar Mr. Lensrdt 3231 AO XAn- s 1 ,,,d :►mile 102 fbMWA B j xA CA 112CM (T141 W326W In accordance with Your request end suthorilstlon, Terentello & Company has prepared a report evslueting the feasibility or requiring a specified number or affordsble units within the sbove.raferenced development. Included In the following report is an analysis or the Subject Four_Unit Condominium Project with the lncluslon of one low- or moderstm.lncome unit. The appropriate price level and average absorption period have been estimeted and the issue of *fair return• to the developer has been addressed. Ve thank You for this opportunity to be of service and look forwerd to Your continued patronage In the future. pespectfullY submitted, TARANTELLO • COMPANY R. Tarantello, CRE President �4r Timothy S, Love Vlcs President sug/nh 2 i r STATEMENT OF A.SUWIIONS, continued. 1317 E. Nalb" MlVd. {9) pricing of cendminiumss Pricing of the condominium units was based upon information supplied by the project architects, Pulaski follows: + Arita, as Unit i S 360,000 Unit Z S 340,000 Unit 3 S 250,000 unit 4 = 230,000 (10) Affordable unit Pricing: The affordable unit rag Considered to replace Unit A In all scenarios. Unit pricing rag based upon Income information provided by Robert P. Lenard. Advance Planning Administrator, City of Newport Beach. Because the designated affordable unit Is a two -bedroom Condominium, the Income level for a four -person household was Considered relevant for potential occupancy. Based upon industry standards, a maximum of 33 percent or the househoidts gross Income can be allocated towards housing debt service. Typical financing terms for residential units has bean assumed as follows: 10 percent down; 13.5 percent rate; )O_year saortl_ nation. Both low income and moderate incoae levels ware analyzed __ the resulting Affordable Unit Pricing used In the calculations is as follows: Low-Incomg Unit S 69,500 Moderate -Income Unit S 1089000 (ll) Affordable Rental itatast Rental Rates were based upon allowable month- Ty- expense information provided by Robert P. Lenard, Advance Planning Administrator, City of Newport Beach. household are as rollers; These rlgur•s for a four -person Low-income Unit f 630 Moderste_Income Unit f 11011 (12) provision of Off-51te Affordable Ualts The following additional assumptions have been Incorporated into the analysis moderate -income units at an off.slta location. The aversged$alesing oprice for all residential units for $ales which occured since the last 11LS listing book was used as the purchase price of the off -site units. Absor flans It has been assumed that the ofr_site unit will be Purchased in the ninth month and sold in the eleventh month. Price.. it has been assumed that the purchase price or the ofr_site unit is 1186#000. This raptesents an approMioatton of the current average residential soles price. L 1 0 0 1 ■+ STATENMY or ASSUMPTIONS 1317 E. Aa1Ma ailed. (1) Pro act Characteristics Description ;ire Unit 1 2 Bedroom / 2.3 Bath Unit 2 3 lsadr000 / 6.5 Beth 2.072 sq.ft. Unit 3 2 iedroow / 2.3 Beth 2.67y sq-ft. Unit 6 2 Sadroon / 2.3 Bath 10834 sq.ft. 1096 sq.ft. (2) Land Omnarehip: At that the land is the start of project it is owned Outright by the devel persruction. assumed (3) Land Cost: PravidaU by the Ownership -- $250,000. (4) Canstructla� Period; A nine -month construction Period has bean from commencement of construction to Completion of unite. assumed (S) Construction Costal Based u Don the eanstructian Supplied b the y Project Cost Estimates architects, Pulaski i as follows; Arita (January 25. 1984). Constructlon Costs S 769.000 The construction costs construction period. are ■ssumed to be incurred evenly over the entire (6) Financing Prima Rate= The rate charged against the Outstandin balance is 2.5 percent over prise- 4 loan l Percent. The loan fee was ateuwed to be is assumed to average 11.0 costs. Percent of the construction (7) R&PaTiant of Loan; Based on 100 percent of gross sales. (8) Absorption: An absorption rate of one unit Incorporated into the calculations. Par two months has been een Priced units would be absorbed first It hasSsales beslnnln umed that the lower month after commencement of construction. g in the ninth 1 I . • 3 I13) Aawiml Cash Ilomt The estlmeted aenuel cash flog from renting out the affordable units incorporates the following annual expenses: Taxes : 3,750 insurance 400 Expenses 2,000 Subtotal : 6,150 Debt Service 25,291 " Total = 31,461 " (80.0l1 loan-to_velue, 13.511 30-year aaorti:ation) _tor ,_ moderatePer Unit Annual Cash flow (Renting for 10 Yeats) ($23,641) IS19,3031 (!s) Residnel value; The residual value of ar affordable unit at the and of the 10th year is based upon an annual 5.0 percent ascalatlon factor lass the ressining loan balance at that time: i 375,612 - t 218,196 = 160,616 e Arre"AMLE MMSIMC FEASINLITT AULTSIS or 1317 E. GALWA @Lvo. four Condominium units SALBOAs CAL UORNIA Residential Development Bys ROMIT 1'. MARNIMCTOM Submitted To: CITY Of NEWP0RT BEACH 02/0e/e4 Submitted By: TARANTELLO i COMPANY r "'AR* Oi e010I0011AL NXOW s'tlrtTW {As of �e�uar7 11, 1f141 I RYER4CI SALES ARM AvCAAt[ OATS ON MAROIT ALTtr[ LttTINCS Since Lost lingo Left Since Lost since Lest &Totsge Aierfge te14101, :000 look Lilting look Tser.te.Ostf Cost book Listing, 0006 ffft.to•Zatf LlltlAq ►rtte OAre en Net■el L- St to Two Or Lees leIIro3+s S 1410300 i 177000 i 174000 147 117 lit 1 221,100 104 Tntoe IestojeS f 200120C S 164,S00 1 301,400 161 111 144 1 224,150 111 All eestlortiel 1 73 O N f 116.100 S 249,300 lie 144 i;? f 312,10Q tic a Orel 0 District f 1Nti1e1t teach/ S 321,100 S 350,000 S 471,600 1S3 7! lid { 142,630 112 {elefs telsrIIJ Dietrlct 10 (14"80tt {esen/ { 433,000 1 l01,SQ0 170 .. 114 { /14,000 1}2 @*loge h nnlnsvle) District 12 Icerome 1$1 Merl S 361,400 $ 302,100 { 109,800 157 127 ASS { %7,600 121 All Resloonttel { 217,300 { 111,600 { 2e1,l00 Is$ l4{ Is? S 112,800 110 seances Mwl%191e Lifting S+ook . voi We 2 t;enLety 13, 111411 NOopolt Ner:Ot/Coot* Mefe 14et1 ei ReeltOrf 0 wARV or [ eOkr s .• (As of January 11, low Dlattic! Mo. 1 .. rrasport iaaC►./Ulasa inland s:crV " lsOrocas'Natr+s Scioto rest Listln- ►rlrs ��_ ►rles ►sr lb�....� SO4ar• ►est Me After �S•'2 digit Oriva iS7S :rssi.ls• :1ts:V Dr1's )i) •. 3 Jsf,f00 337 Z"rs 212 -. i 2if,000 20s 93a1 21i 1,000 f 11f,000 f Ito • 2662 Crest'lay 3/1 .. 1 ))5,000 3Cf SOON :a 3/2 .. f 3af,600 J31 a;::ant A/].$ .. 1 3af,f30 2�13 Crastrla� 3/3 I'm S )SS,000 6 12f 33C1 ►art a.anu@ 211.1 i1S raarald 2/1 :SIJ Vista alive 3/2 -- f lif,000 Ica ■vOr Avenue 312 .• i 31p,000 0 :al e! :an,,arr r7 ��All 4ietrlat Me. 10 .. rrhCOft MSCh/941baa ►ennlneule a�efetl Seeteo�l:letna S4ue7e feet tlrtl*4 Price Price Per ! louvre feet :)t G Strfel 3I1 # Jaf,DDO 7:la :cea� li.a. 112 .. 1 770,000 71�a rlraea; Jri.e )IJ.S .. # its. No i3e7 wlraear :r:le 2/1 7113 3e.11Ie A.eA409 7/7 # 2fS,00D # 7f6,aDo 1123 Say Avenue )/I .. # lfl,000 • f:i IlJeaa 11.0. )/) 2 1411 # 321,000 aJ+ sellwe .one 4/7 # lla 721 soy Avenue W # 3J3,000 3i1 lrlana 3/1.3 .. # 3)1,000 1377 aces" $Iwo. 217 -. 33f,000 toll +itself Drift 2/7 ),13D # 3a1,000 all it street 3/7 # ell .. # 373,000 0 I ." 01 as ci : r .ar• ... :sfai Olsttict re. 1I -• cerone Del lost rrt:e rat , 400:r55 ta.rco•a:l+:hr S7.are yore Llat�M-. Pfie ioWars root 6;0 Pc;tt c•.-,$# lit 7a5 1 11f,000 S Isa »2 an:ta T,T _. 1 J7t,5oo 37e cs•::a P:a:. 601 `411:!It.f f!1•S •• 1 7!t.SnD 42, :a:t:::c ?frro:r t�7 1,100 3 tat,060 1 ile 741 a:a::a 546 Sfa•ats 1r,.rf •. S 750,00� 136 soc•►orc •:a:r 901 SIPScsa:le 1,7 t.l�i 3 711,000 3 lal tSJ7 §91ASr j33n8 7e::ac1 3�1 3,a00 1 7iy,0G8 1 l« all acc:t t.an.e 7�7 •- i 715,949 1436 3919,18ee Terrace $It ►pp97 1 275,000 M % Sea+:e• 7/1 .. 1 775,000 415 attach Alt -- 1 279.to0 S&P See•ate 4/2 -- 1 219.500 4501 Surrey 9rlve 4/2 -- 1 360.509 M Jest!" 4r7.3 •. 1 zmooc 1033 rr.ltt $eas fay a,t.) .. 1 3t3.000 a;l 0a solo sego-e u3 ?,An 1 799.0c0 1 iJS 1731 l454 S.:fllme raj Meyvts• 411.5 312 •. 1,IS3 1 320,000 t 375.000 1 175 • 300 Rockfat: Place 3/2 -• 1 325.000 M lots 31) •• 1 320,000 30) Msrcissus 312 •. 1 335,000 2710 brsift Olive 313 .• 1 3S3,too /30 cease *190:4046 olive 3/2 •• 1 343.000 212 loettpetC I+eve 211 .. 1 34).030 lttt ?r:.e )11.5 .. 1 )67,300 430L sao*e @Its a 7.5 2,230 1 )at,000 1 ISO all cr Sols 'et:s:e 3rJ .. 1 350,09C 321 ++stelas.a 5/2 1,100 1 330.000 ! lta 7S70 Llg#ths,*ss tent 6/7.S 18600 1 )60,000 ISO lo.tcel ■vltW o 1.11t:np look - re: we 7 I:6*War7 1). 111101 Newport unber/cests rsaa solid of sealssrs (A$ or January OSaRrlcl Mo. f — .pert `d,/�.lt�e. tal.+e atir rtraiaiarMlM t1Hle f.l„a Rlae —�--- lfata of Sal• t+rOwe Drill us 1 M5,000 S SliC,000 Slnsiu oLtrlet Me. 10 — larrpmt @=&V b l rtrnlr+rul■ am !1✓S. ] units 1 K000 1 lx,]> 1>vsoiu oirtrsct u — *was oat MW • ! wrl �it.s 1 >ho,000 1 1ts,000 SL7a/p a7; as S446 firma �: t ?u,aoo 1 as,�o wtivu ait� 3ortriataT I1oa0 )/s 1 s/fr o00 1 s+a,aoo Ot/4VM au �relaa,ra W 1 »t,sta 1 xsr,XO OS10//M rYl�'d iu=: O.ZU11e usting kx* . roles 7 (.nary 1s, 1 M)1 NNW% Marborgmts No@ hard o1 Me Wn • 601'rC404A CASH riLy 1CCN&NIOi ON( MOCIRAT9-1140st U1411 iar salalOn. slit ' +Mal :a+a:x+s7's alnj. If {orstt-ct:an OP.-rclN 94#r:q:p" 001tr4l , :r:ss paw;opar s :owtltt.naa :n.a:apas•s art- :a•q::ur: r!:.::r tre :At$ !At% 'r»ts "ra. sepal %:rca Salaa Cass r:ar twttr 13,111 Prof lt pv•:aft 1 svm : ,w, 1 25C MO 1 l5.raa { X,71G s MA.r+ 1 1.4,2+d► 1 .0. 1 lla.:A 1 •C. f S �.�2 f I9A,Un s -- 1 -G- :arr.:s :� s::r.:1•r :.301 U.75. 1a,'7: .a tca W .0. .lr 250,cm .r .Rr ) .0. 1s.+.+ 211a} 67,727 s,,n7 .0. MAW .ti. .0. 1$0,f11r .f .r • a .1� 1. no ",71a U.714. .0. 171,)" .�. .0. 2%,rm .a .a 1 .lr as,&" 6.26a 19,7:2 ".712 -0. i41,10e -a -� 25Q,CIA] •a. 4- 1 •+ $I,aas 1,277 90,72: 11:,771 -0. SHAM 250,MQ -lr T C. t%."A 6,2% fl."a2 11,7a2 -0. 1}1,17i .0. -C. 250,= .r .G. 1 b�• yuvt:►q •0. I5,4+4 s.}k1 n.'7a K."?a .0. 7N,?61 -6• -0. 2l0.tw .� .{. -0. l5.4" 1.376 911119 .0. 14,10 7)0,193 J1M,fLC •:. 2s0,WQ .0- SO:1 Lrj t • D. /,Ila 0,214 1.214 40. T",177 .0. .0. 210,CC10 4. A I Sall umn } .a -0. 8.w 61)C1 .& tu,/f) 4"'ti1 250,UUD .a. 210,W1 .t. D. I .'3• -C. 1.s1/ $'m 1,sw •a. rz,2n .or AO 75010A .0. -r i} Sell fit : •. -lr 1,451 s.Lsl .a !)a,)as .17,721 A010M .}. 2s0,= Z. •r 1a .% 1. w :,M1! :,1a1 .0- : M$? •G. •;. 254,000 •:. .✓_ 111 Solo: fit 169,812 -0. 3a0,]W 1b1.271 11,7z7 11i,2'! SillMi 1Q7A3 �2SOjC] } ►fay,fNL 1�_,11f11f. mi 1.0.1 O tj2j - 1f M,Z>t Q 7p) L sG1.TCO. 'ataTlallc 1 :WWI r... rj ---m =. s■ r a. i- a ,. -.Fklv SC[PARlor 001 LOr.tRtOwt UwI f rot 361*10n-slit total - 'or`tn e1A;y�■ry :rl:r L/f�T W&tritir rf.aN!%y =at• Dtws.o^w,t Cats �11t��ro hogs (/t.flr-Or's %•�:�a■r'a 'Ontf.mad hflwr� ar 4ts■:optl's �y�t�� --�-- arm a ' •W ►1w� ea,ser ta.ler +evrit Pr.wt 1 •*ccr0 6W/ Crrrtrta :o►s:rwtla+ f :?L,JOG s 11,•.► f 3c,tso s W. ??s f tlf,to■ .� S 111,241s -a s:2n.a�oi s 23C.9f� -- �- .a .�«••� .a 2 3 •a t3,aa� 1,307 711 N,751 .0. 2ar,tss .a .c. 13i,,0iC .0. .0. -06 13,a+a 2,213 01,777 17,?V .a .a 230,00fi . a 3 -0. tl.saa 3,rx 10,7ia N,714 A fT/,}ai .a -a 23C,ax 'a ALA" a,2a0 11,712 11,712 .a 449,101 -a .a 3t0.0 .0. .a 7 •a U.4" 3,m 90,774 OWN .O. $59,129 .0. -o. Max, -0. -o 1 •a IS,w {,211 11,742 /1,7a2 .0. $51,171 .D. .a 210,000 .a 0t41r wtvtl�q .a 13,aaa 1,330 14,77a 92,774 .O. 744049 .O. .a I70,0CC .a Ca�pina Co�+atrurtlry loll u It r .a Rl,a+a 1,3ta 13,�1/ 2a,111 .a 7si 60 �+ Spo •a fx,000 .a A .a .0. l0 ll fall vit 7 .o. .0 1,w7 8,647 1,w7 .a. 777,3t0 .a 46 �'� 12 •a 1,74S 1,743 .0. 741,333 33i,oSs 750,000 .a M.ccp -a .a 13 Sall U►1! 2 'o i.ml 61031 i,031 .0. SQ'otti A ?i AO -0. .-C6 la .0. .0. i,o" 410" -0. 33},tot 201.114 340.0Oo IS Sall u^!t 1 .� a. LW 2,3a2 2,w .a t1o,32i .a -a tsc,aon -a .a 213" 21Iii -0. 2lo.32i .0. 3i0,00I1 lat,l0a SL?.11a !a7 loi tomsMOM LM LML a1: sao L_MOA „Y tat st t •, *ZW1 lawto:l4 i :~r ►REF30us C4i.. rLoe SC[NAA:03 Omit M00CRA7;-INCOut U1111 for SaWoff-We T-.1 C 3�•�:::rrt k:a.• :a+e��l:o► �:•m:l•+� 7+.11o�p•t cht.t"Ing Uou :V•11ot r'1 :Ortf1GA.3 =, t. r>> ::�t� Cotl1 :wtti WSW n :uo r:y. (alti title �r3"! ►e•�t 1 +1:6sa .+r. t ;x,ur, I ::. ,'47 4 7 ,2+G ti 1:f,Ica s .4:.. 1 i14.20+ 1 -r f :2SG.7L; 1 1x,SuC } •� l..��r i,)C1 st,731 U,751 .Ir M,M ;7x,xcj MOW .y .� 3 •ar Is' u :.713 6T,rp 67,727 .Q 77006M 41 ;73cl=i }30,am .'« .. • + .:. 0, 4" ]. 3e,1i4 ee.116 .o. in,)% .a• (150.Orx) JC,OOO .o. .. es,.0 .,tse et,112 e9,711 -a. +sr,soo .0. (210.aoe) 25c.am 8 -+ ff..+a l,771 SO.'11 10,721 e21 .cc.w 4. (73w,Oool 2s0,=. w •1 + -a. IS,4411 ], T20 81, 71• 88,71+ .i>< In, )% .Q ; 73G,xx; 130.0m .� .0. 3 -t 0.4A4 0,218 N,711 ",712 .0. 4N,104 .Or (230,0a0) 23c'mo .¢ .G. 8 .G 11,4c. f,777 to,171 Y.711 .0• s3f,111 .0. t730,000i 3so, om .4. .� 1 •� ai'"A +,7f/ %.741 01,7+2 .0. $51,171 .0. (m.mGi 23c,= .b A 1 b�.•• runt)"2 •� /S,t4a 7,]3J fI,77. 1},7H .0. 74.,H3 .4. (7SO,Om) ls0,0oII .r. A 1 Ca�Gle:l:arr::c::r� 4.. 13.us 1,374 :».118 .O. 31,1/1 fM,1f3 338,OL10 (}30,000) 27[,.Ow .0. .y. Sol: off-il:e r:: -: .8. T,t:1 1,71f 7,t1) •� If],U2 .+7r (1x.mc; 23C,000 • . .� 31 Sell trit 3 .: 46 1,+xy 7,1[K .G 7+7,1sy +71.688 2W.O a ;2S0.=: }3C,J0C 11 .06 s.01: s,G11 3,0e1 .0. +sa,769 ;21c,%c; 1x.aoc 13 SCI trit 7 .7- 3109 5119 .0. )S+.Iit 471110/ }IC.Ow t3sG,MCI }Y.2m 4.. .� je •¢ • 1,371 1.311 1,371 •fl` 113.211 (W.70C) rx,xc .& li selllril 1 .r .N 1,317 1,3y A. 123,}» 4. 340,ODt }]5,331 I6.6M 133.1U t3�,{ee) VIALS 7j _ ".++c 0 I. 34r "A f i T3i,s1i L dm ' iiL)2m.u36 + ML f.t Sat:11 'a:+r:t:l: i 'agr+r # Momm *9 t»••M= OUT . It sl.�orf.ilt+ , :*•e:a�t'4:!s•ltr --- tr.Q Total c"tractlr rlFww.'.fq ?r.elop.ent tom_ NtttrdIng Cram s�+a 0evelo't OMlowIt CW411UA#d bow" lit t4velawa't `'e+t+ Cale p ■:m Ulu teen ►14 [ofrN [adt #wit Rra�t 1 s 606V :mod trttrwtlr ! lx,aae : b,..a 1 )01163 ! 3xt1201 -.�•• rs, au 1007 lM, 7sl Ii, 7l3 .0. 2Q21SSS .0. • 2,20 !7, m1 V. m .0. 2f0, Im .4• 12)0, DOCj ?S0, ODD -4 .a f •0' a►+w+ 3,no M,71e 41,71• .p. 3"'m .0. I2l0,mo] 170,ODD � •a ! •0. Is.4" t,2i1 n,712 I9,7a .o. •i3,1m .0. I29D,MM 210,= 1 •0. u,+� S,m f0,m 904721 .0. Sfl,i?! .0. t 230, mol 230.00D 0 •4 �,�► I'm 91,74 11,T� .a 631,)71 � .a � 2�r�1 250, Om .4 .�. Opp, rr �t 1 ^9 .0. q,••• 7,330 92.774 n,71• .0. 744,343 f taoirte Conttr�r!Jary ! 3*►.!!tt Wt .0. /s,1•• I,374 271,t•• .4 21QSf 7J/,20 2rr xQ 210ram 21010M .0. .4 lJ Un %pit 3 .06 .4 /,OS/ 774,347 .4 r lMrOM) 2*7,t2,10 � .0. .0. 1,1•9 0,J•f .4 2+1,q1 M2,•fl ls0,000 I MAX 230100D .d 13 .0. .0. 1,an !,W f,•21 -0• •i7,n• .a �230,mm ltl: V%lt ? .0. .a 7,•+f !,M! .0. 331,l11 1l3,•1) 3t0,000 (2f0,01�j ?70,QZY7 .4 �i J• 2f '0. •0• 1,72/ 1,726 J,7?i .0. 1fl,1H .4. ("Clow) 2)O,OOD .4 18:1 w4t 1 -0. A. 1,7.3 1,7•S .4 JSS,1lf .0. 3iD, ooD 203, J u .•, w 20),1 a ,0. •s, [w� ft": 11CAF&I to 1 :o.:my %6 uOrgtra Ca114 ►:Oe fCEMtlftl0I OME MOOCRAIE•INCOME W411 for lout . "W'� >••+.rsr: tat*It+ :7+�tru::IPr' ►i^r'ri'+y +ata1 :k.t:sve•t OutttrJi�q Groh 0t+913:,.rIs *v% strt :v4r:t•M#: Lt.t:;�trE :r4 :xt• .apt• Cuta aa. ttar lwlatt Salty :n' r:a, f Eau3t+ ►snot krntri 1 a.atr:.sr, :arwr� Corstv.ctia+ s 2%.OM 7 ts..at 1 fo,lic s laa,36t f 11A.XA s .16 s 11l,30a f •�. f� 2 .,M0) 2fa.wo .'� t •2 tS.a:a :,70s !4.JS1 ft,J71 -0. t'r..r.5 .� .Mr" 3 •a •l,aaa 2,It7 IJ,r1r 17,rn .o. tlD,afit .a~ ;250,0001 I%.= a -2 IS,aaa 3,'7? M,'ya M,Jyt .d. 771,71! .b. (270,L>aiJ 27C,= .'.. .0. 7 •a iS.au a„q n, r;t 11,J11 .0. u1,101 .a 1 M.000) M,trz / •2 I7,aaa S,rn KIM f0,731 .a ;31.V9 A ;250,OMI 2Sf:.= .0. .0. 7 •2 03,aa4 f,211 11,742 11,Ta3 .a 01,511 .a (27C.=) t7C.0 fi Ug" sww.13 .2 $3,aaa 7,330 12.77• 12,77a .O. 7aa,341 .a 12301=1 tlO.mO .C. .a f C64:114 is, aaa I,)Ja 13,116 .0. 17i.1f4 7f11.1A 370.000 (2701000) MOM lr:l v!t f 10 .2 .0. 4,411 6,417 61117 .0. f1a.7p .0. (2M.MCI MOM .0. .� 11 fall tr3t t .¢ .0. 61611 6,411 .0. 733.70! 261,471 30,000 (210.000) 21163 2,942 2,tat .0. tia,al3 -0. (250.000) 3".ow l7 Sf:: tMt S; atrt •2 .0. 2,1J) 2,1`7 .0. ?bt.a17 _0. M.= 12,112 1f7.71i 1t,a1} i:fT,711; ati aN:-rce �� -------- tr1t a &YW Caar r:ar ;1r.ting IN Modenti - IN=o trntt far tan lout) I ( it. x o) PUISA: 'n:A (310:114 tN IXdt at tM lnd of Vv tantn 71u) $160,016 Small rur'tf::c ! 0.0s.-A97 rb e POOFRONA w I "1 SC[MAR108 OM= L0949COME Lql r I<ar trial , I Ot e; s 't^ Oe•a::ate•! Lt3•Itr .rr+a CanetruCtlx+ ^asls fl�erel�q au Dr.s;oa...t , , 0..i.an4l�q Uses De.elow's D@"Ie .?'s wirl"Ot AIKr- sr �,q;p ,r Cats_ p—'=ar� I� rlKp Seas Cur+ Pia [ L _T Profit $"art 1 Aacr: ;wv ts�sncs •rs:rwtlS- s 21c,am ' f l3S,I6s A ! lla,tOa .0. t270,0oDJ 27C.'la0 s .� s ,a 2 i -a es,..a 1,7a7 1�,ni Ifa,7s1 .a X12a"1 -0. me] Il WO D. u •'+a 2, n3 1?, m 17 m .D. s 1i,7l� tr,7]. .p. [2ia,a�o 27O mo i p,ait a,7fi n.7u n,712 -0. aw.lai .0. [2lO,tX>C) Im.a D 7 -0. d.e++ s,tn fO,721 l0,T21 ss�,tw .a. ( 2sa,OpG) "CAM �1 'C6 d.Ye 6,2" fl 74 ' 91,742 -a a1,s71 .a (2?o,apD; �o,aao .a .` 46 ct>4;ete Cws:rctlsv .a 136"A ?,na n,n. �,na 4. x.,a,s .� (np,mD) no,= .a. .a .a sell tilt 7 .a. Is,w I'm "ISIS .0. SSi,tQ laa,lA 2l0,000 (2s0,O 2la.Of>D SO 1l Ull trit 2 .0. .0. 60617 A,1U7 ill) • -it lM,T» .0. (230,ODD) 2y0.Op0 -� .0. tt .0. .0. 6,691 i i11 .0. xn,xs :i1,e71 s.o,Dpo i t>o,DDc) 2so,mD Ss sell we l; e� .a .o. 2,%2 2 w 2,7�I7 .t� tia,au .a. .a. •4• .0. .� t,ns t.m .0. n tss?.Sw) trot a s M•M{ Lmv!mapLA � tit *r-Al Cent, 11ar (SVIUrq A sou . ]now trlt far tan aealeal rw w Iselllmq of tnit et the W4 of tnr fwee) tar4h mu) s 1Rl,ili 304cel w4mtl;4 a c3mw7 . Is TnIFICATIOM of COMSTRWTIOM COSTS A comparison gas made of construction costs for this and three beach front projects that tee have reviewed. The results are shorn slellat In the table on the following page. the construction costs per square toot for the proposed project at Balboa Boulevard, while within the range {�� E. Presented on the lab!*, are perhaps sowerhst high when compared to the Spinnaker gar and Morning Canyon Road Projects In Particular. However, given residential units the quality of canatruttion of other In the vicinity of this project, It !a poasibia that such construction costs are justified. COMPARISON of COSTS fall r" SlrtlAA ItiO)CCiS Artt a0a Santa total 4+atagt Ca�trulfon Cwitt:lan Iota! ►ootaw Price of ►ltoa :a anct CoWtucttan wft hlol Coal . ;rd C?st 4Ct .� 40. Jlu hr Wt oil Un1u hr UA:t Cart Cost or So. rt. 1r( $4• /t. At SR• ft• 1717 E. Ice:Oca Oleo. a 2137 S l,t1a,000 s 215,000 f 710,000 S 741,000 s 111.50 a sclftealifr for 10 1004 2,000,000 200,000 a00,.-M 110,000 191.70 10.12 +a1 Maf�snp r+n,cn,�•o !• 129) 2,010,000 700,714 1S0,000 14434,600 1!).25 79.76 l) M MC :.57/,00a 444,130 810,OS7 1,428,000 1to. t► 101.)1 tSIM SOY1Ca: tatantt;lo a casoany 0 • 17 [s] SUMMARY Alp CONCLUSIONS As evidenced by the preceding Preforms Cash Flows and as awearlled below, return improves as the the estlaated rate of return under the six scenarios range between (5.9) pef. unit is incorporated into the proj cent and [41.2) percent. AS expected, the rate of location of the affordable unit is saved offsite and when a moderate_lncoma act rather than a low-income unit. ESTIMATED RATE Or RETWOO Moderate -Income Low -incomes for sale / Onslte [24.7) s For sale / orfslte { �l.�j B .91 For Lasso / Onslte (10.2) x It should be noted that these rates of return reflect point eslS�atas eased upon a series of assumptions detailed earlier in artuai rate or return achieved D tills report. The mil l depend upon to chat degree t variances E. from Balboa these assumptions vOrd prt4nt experienced and In what direction (i.e., positlre or negative) the atre Is the opinion of Tarantella i Company that if variances do occur, they arIt e more likely to occur In a negative If resulting in ■ reduction or the rota or return. The more significant factors which could Cause such a result .are as follows; (1) a ■era lengthly absorption parlod construction costs; and (]) a reduction In achievable saI(�) an increase in several more downside risks than upside • Prices' There are more probable that in the midst of an ecnool recoreforry example, it is for rates, labor terest costs and construction materials are ell likely todrisetinnPrice; thereby, further reducing potential y price; rising interest rates have Substantially tslowed yhousing at t sales (withhe $Nme ers recently able increase in absorption period for now construction) and predict_ suppressed real estate appreciation rates to below current estimated substantially tlof 1lving price levels. Any anticipated increase in e■tremely unlikely. In simple language,Potential sales prices is "upside . the downside• is greater than the Given the rlsk level associated with aforementioned this type of development and the likely dlrectioo or any variances. it is our opinion that the only reasonable scenario is the exclusion of any affordable units __ onslte or oftsite. Based upon our experience and knowledge eirie development Specific projects, Tarantello l Company has round that most developers of Spe would not under_ percent. take such a development without an expected rate or return of at least 50 In summation, in a rinsnelal world where hlgh_grads Yielding 12 percent or mots, with full corporate bonds erg stints, liquidity and no management require. our most recent experience In the evaluation of development for similar clients suggests required rates of return In excess f y0pp�r�*�� on Invested capital over the term of the project. the previous scenarios aIt is evident that none or approach this benchmark, end we strongly recommend that de arrordable unit requirement be imposed upon the 1317 Jr. Balboa Boulevord development. POST •FFICE BOX 82V-.e BALBOA, CAUFOILNIA May 19. 1984 The City Council City of Newport Beach PDX 1768 Nw-Tort Beach 92663-3884 Dear Council Friends: At its meeting on May loth, 1984, the board of directors reaffirmed its opposition to the request by pLrASKI AND ARITA for a rezoning of ifroperty on the peninsula at 1319 East Balboa Blvd. We jr,tn the fw,ediate neighbors of the project in asking the City Council to stand by the zoning regulations of this area which is overwhelmingly residential. We see no valid excuse why the height limits should be b mached or the set back lines changed that will allow this multi -unit project encroach on their neighbors, sincerely, A � 7b0nas Roy Pendell President ACC: EIVEO 1 pmrW4 IAAy 22 M4 ► i CM OF Us FOR COADOMINIUM PURPOSES 5f�t�I1[�1i`�/� P:)AKgRL MZ%5' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH , COUNTY OF'ORANGE STATF, OF CALIFORNIA A ►URTIUN bar FOT I AND LOT t OF BLOCK II, HALIOA 1RAl'F, HDUK 4, ►AGF 10 MISL. MAPS COUNTY (If 0lAhG1 PROPFRTY ADDRESS! OWNER SUBDIVIDER GENLRAI. NOTES! III? EAST RALROA ROHE111 WARMINC•TON I E:ISTINO ZONING R1 • R•1'RFL04E1 NJ *POST RF 4C11, CA 1049 ►ULLMAN I ►RO►OSFD USE • 4 COND04Iti1011 COSTA AAt%A CA 1 ALL EXISTING STIII.CIL:RLS TU RE REN0%11 4 ►inPOSLO WATER DRAINAGE BY SURIACE. _ INIU ITRLEI OR BY EXISTIyG STORII O@All BOARDWALK f :RI 4I' I 1 t 0 m LOT I -1 t $; AREA I1 ACRES ;g m m v�i 44 •• �•• I07 42, r � I { , 'i e• SCALE V : W 0-1 PROCEDURES FOR NEW DEVELO 1, Determination of Applicability When an application for a residential project is first submitted, it should be determined if P-1 is applicable by answering the following que4t1ral1g3 1. Is the project in the Coastal Zone? Yess See 02. No: The project is exempt from P-1. 2. Is the project site aVacant: See #3. ® occupied by two or less residential units including mobile homes: See 03. In non-residential user See 43. Occupied by three or more residential unttne See P-1 Procedures for conversions and denvilltions. ail 3. Does the project entail the constru::tion of three or more residential units? Yess P-1 is applicable. No: The project is exempt. Procedures if Applicable If under the above criteria Policy P-1 is applicable, the property owner and/or developer shall file an application for a Development Permit which shall include the following informations 1. A description of the proposed project, including its location and the number of units to be provided. 2. The cost of the proposed development. 3. The anticipated return on investment by the developer. 4. A description of any social, technical, environmental or related problems associated with the provision of affordable housing units. The application must be accompanied by a fee of $250.00 per residential unit. If the project involves forty or moto residential units, the Planning Commission may approve a reduction in the fees. '3 • M r4k rrli ►. �"w�r.rRN�.�w.w.rwa�a , If the project requires Planning Commission approval, the planning Commission will determine the feasibility of including affordable units. In other cases, the Planning Director will make the determination. If the provision of affordable residential units is determined to be feasible, the Planning Conmission or Planning Director shall also determine how many unite trust be provided. When affordable unite are required, the developer and/or property owner must enter into a yrttten agreement with the City assuring that the units will be available for occupancy within three years of project approval, To assure compliance, a surety bond equal to at least two times the cost of providing the units is also required. The Planning Director will set the praclse amount of the bond. SCinma ,i 12/14/82 ..Sr+.yR. if...� :i... ar.:.;.ti.s� r+k:►v�:r%«+ s `I.'.ari%.�,tr`wa .. ..4 ::•.r,Myi,r:t,cwwi:-�wyY'�'r...WWJ,4� e,,. .. y., +r.�`�M�/r ��,.Y; FINAL SINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVARt GPA 93-2c, AKENDNP.NT NO. 605, TRAFFIC STUDY TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 11937 and TAT- NO - APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON Kay 29, 1984 A. Environmental Document I. Approve the Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Ne-.►port Beach, Villa Point Apartments, Pacific Coast Highway FrontAgq, and supportive materialsi 3. Recomwnd that the City Council certify the Environmental Document is completer 3. Make the Findings listed belowt FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State ZIP Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of this envirorunantal document have bean considered in the various decisions on the project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proponn,l project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. H. General Plan Amendment 83-2(c) (Portion) 1. Adopt Resolution No. 1118, recommending to the City Council the adoption of amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Eler.ents of the Newport Beach General Plan for the Coast highway/ Jamboree site. C. Amendment No. 605 1. Adopt Resolution No. 1119, recommending to the City Council the adoption of the villa Point Planned Community District Regulations, incorporating any desired changes. D. Traffic Study 1. Approve the Traffic Study and make the following Findings, based upon the facts and subject to the Conditions listed belowt FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the is:pact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. r FINAL FIMIIHC3 I'rIOiJS CPA 83-2c, A605, TS, TNT 11937, RCDp No. 9 Page -2 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project -generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of six critical intersections, and will sMl to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at two critical intartiactions, which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of more than .9000. 3. That tho Traffic Study suggests circulation system improvements which will improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level at all critical intersections. CONDITION: 1. That prior to occupancy of any portion of the project facilities, the circulation system improvements described in the Traffic Study to the intersections at Jamboree Road and Bristol Street and at Jamboree Road and Ford Road will be in place (unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto). The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. E. Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 FINDINGSt 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning stand- point. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of develop- ment. 4, That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. b. That the proposed development will generate an incroase in daily trips sufficient in magnitude to warrant a fair share assessment to mitigate the increased traffic congestion and traffic noise resulting from the cumula- tive affect of additional traffic generated by commercial, office and multiple residential development in the center. CONDITIONSt I. That a final trap be filed. sssr FIl4P►L FINDINGS �COIiDMONS GPI► 63-2c, A605, TS, TNT 11937, RCDP No. 9 Pa" -3 2. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans sub- mitted except as noted below. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That a standard subdivision agreesrent and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the street improvrpents, if it is desired to obtain a building permit or record the tr4ot map prior to completion of the public improvements. 5. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 6. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 7. That the design of the private utreeta and drives conform with the City`s private street policy (L-4), except as approved by the Public Works Department. The basic roadway width shall be a minimum of 32 feat. The location, width, configuration and concept of the private street and drive system shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer, and the Fire Department. B. That the intersection of the private streets with public ntreets be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight dintanee requirements. Landscaping within the night distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non -critical locations, subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 9. That the California vehicle Code be enforced on the private streets and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public works Department be provided along the sidelines of the private streets and drives. 10, That no control gate at the entrance shall be allowed unless the entrance area is redesigned to allow for a turn -around to be provided prior to the gate. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed by the Public works Department and the Fire Department. 11. The easements for ingress, egress and public utility purposes on all private streets be dedicated to the City, and that all easements be shown on the tract map. 12. That asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with the width to be approved by the Public works Department. FINAL FINDINGS A ITIONS • GPA 83-2c, A605, ?S, T"T 11937, AMP No. 9 Page -4 13. That all vehicular access rights to East Coast iilghway he released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach except for one access point, with the location to be approved by the Public Works Department. 14. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parke, Beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. 15. That street, drainage and utility improvements be stwwn on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 16. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the final map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 17. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of tho Public Works Department and thin Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such deaonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. 18. That a maximum of ten feet of pedestrian easement or additional right- of-way be dedicated to the public for street and highway purposes along the East Coast Highway Frontage adjacent to Lots No. 1 and 2, and the residual parcel, with the exact amount to be determined by the Public Works Department. This right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City prior to August 1, 1984. 19. That additional right-of-way be dedicated to the public for street and highway purposes along Back Bay Drive from Jamboree Road to East Coast Highway. The roadway shall have a minimum right-of-way width of 72 feet and a maximum width of 82 feet. 20. That full improvements be constructed along Back Day Drive from Jamboree Road to Fast Coast Highway. These improvements shall include but not be linitod to curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement and street lights. 21. That the developer construct a traffic signal at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive. The plans for the traffic signal shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. This signal shall be installed prior to occupancy unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. A separate agreement and surety may be provided for this work. 22. That the developer be responsible for 50♦ of the cost of the traffic signal at the intersection of Jamboree Road with Back Day Drive. A separate agreement and surety should be provided. 23. That the developer contribute to the City the cost of improving East Coast Highway to major highway standards along the proposed tract frontage which runs from Back Bay Drive easterly to the easterly boundary of the tract. This contribution shall be deposited with the City prior to recording any tract maps or issuance of any grading or building permits. MAL FINUNGS A&MITIONS • GPA 83-2c, A605, TS, TM 11937, RCDP No. 9 Page -5 24. The Irvine Company shall provide for approximately 1,100 linear feet of an off -site storm drain, from the Jamboree Road intersection down Back Bay Drive to the existing storm drain inlet structure at the Back flay. This storm drain shall _ be constructed concurrently with project construction. 25. A storm drain shall be provided as part of the project, to channel surface Waters from the project site and a portion of rant Coast Highway to the starter -planned off site storm drains. This storm drain shall be constructed concurrently with project construction. 26. That the location of fire hydrants and water mains shall re approved by the Fire Department. 27. That emergency access to and within the site shall b* approved by the Fire Department. 28. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading Wrrnit to be ap- proved by the Building and Planning Departmentn. 29. That a grayling plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potnntinl impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 30. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping programs designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 31. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department, and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 32. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shell be evaluated, and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 33. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a civil engineer and based on recommendations of a roils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 34. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a scanner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 35. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 36. All proposed development shall provide for vacuum sweeping of parking areas. FIN)LL FINDINGS AIIRONDITIOUS GPA 83-2c, A605, Tti, TMT 11937, RMP No. 9 Page -6 37. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the developer and grading contractors of the results of the study. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the under- lying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist nhall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the findn. 38. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that nrnn of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and/or developer. 39. A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and/or developer to attend pregrade meetings and perform inspections during development. The paleontologist shall be alloyed to divert, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. 40. Should fossils be discovered during grading operatiornn, the landowner shall donate the fossils collected to a non-profit institution. 41. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive the provisions of AB952 related to City of Newport Beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts, in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 42. That prior to the occupancy of any unit, a qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant's expense, shall demonstrate to the satiAfaction of the Planning Director that the noise impact from East Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive on the project does not exceed 65 db MEL for outside living areas and the requirements of law for interior spaces. 43. Prior to issuance of any building permits authorized by the approval of this tentative map, the applicant shall deposit with the City's Finance Director the sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for the construction of a sound -attenuation barrier on the southerly side of West Coast Highway in the Went Newport Area and in the Irvine Terrace and Jamboree Road areas. This contribution is estimated to be $21,600, based on 1,080 daily trips at $20 per trip. 44. Prior to the issuance of any building and/or grading permit, the applicant shall pay its "fair share" of circulation systems improvements for the ultimate circulation system. This contribution in estimated to be $231,120, based on 1,080 daily trips at $214 per trip. In lieu of a monetary fair -share contribution, the City will accept the dedication of the additional right-of-way needed for the Coast Highway widening project between Jamboree (toad and Bayside Drive to fulfill this condition. This dedication would include only the land owners interests in the De Anza FINAL FINDINGS AI&MITIONS GPA 83-2c, A605, TS, TMT 11937, FCDP No. 9 Page -7 Village area and be further defined as needed by the Public Works Depart- ment. The additional right-of-way dedicated will also satisfy the fair share requirement for the coru+ercial development on the site bounded by East Coast Highway, Jamboree Road and Bay Bay Drive. In no event will the amount of fair share credit granted exceed 0.5 times tho buildable area of the site. By the placement of thin licit on fair share credit the City is not implying that this level of intensity will be approved. Additionally, credit granted will only be for the development ultimately approved on the site, and cannot be used by development on any other site. 45. That prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, approved by the City Attorney and the Planning Director, which guarantees the provision of four "affordable" units on site or off site in the Baywood expansion. 46. Of the "affordable' unite provided, three shall he affordable to a County median income family and one shall be affordable to a County moderate income family. 47. The affordability of the units shall be guaranteed for a period of at least ten years. 48. That the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance will be satisfied by the use of park credits granted to The Irvine Company for the dedication of the Mouth of Big Canyon. 49. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public works Department. 50. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded or screened from view by architectural features. 51. upstairs patio areas will be glassed in for all areas within the 65 CNEL contour. Units within these buildings will also be provided with aluminum sliding windows of normal 1/0 inch thickness. Downstairs units within the G5 CNEL contour will be shielded from the noise source by a barrier approved by the Planning Director. 52. Parking areas shall be paved early during construction. 53. Openable windows shall be used to allow cooling by normal breezes. 54. A lighting plan which describes how energy conservation has been incor- porated into the lighting scheme shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Department. 55. A solar hot water system will be installed for the ccmmunity pool and spa. 56. Prior to approval of the final subdivision nap, the applicant shall consult with the Public Works Department and the Orange County Transit District regarding the provision of a bus stop and related amenities (i.e., shelter, bench) along East Coast Highway adjacent to the project site. FmL FINDINGS Alllk DITIONS . GPA 83-2c, A605, TS, TMT 11937, RCDP No. 9 Page -8 The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of a permanent bus stop along East Coast Highway subsequent to widening of the highway in 1985-86. An interim bus stop with access to the project site may be provided until that time. If required, the applicant shall he responsible for the dedication and installation of a permanent bus stop along East Coast Highway. 57. The city of Newport Beach -requires each project to provide for all necessary roadway improvements. Several improvements necessary for this project have been required of previously -approved projects but are not yet constructed. The project will be required to contribute to or provide full improvements to intersections identified in the Traffic Study (unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto). The circula- tion system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 58. That the driveway be designed for two-way ingress and egress if determined to be feasible by the Public Works Department and that it not be provided until the nursery use is terminated. Further, that the driveway onto Coast Highway be closed, if feasibla. 59. That development is subject to the roviaw and approval by the City of a Development Agreement for Newport Center as required by General Plan Amendment No. 83-1(e). 60. That the Development Agreement shall include provisions for the phasing of the Villa Point project with the construction of affordable housing units on the Newport Village, Maywood Expansion or Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard sites. In the event one or more of these projects cannot be tiered to coincide with the construction of this project, the City may allow the appropriate number of affordable housing units to be provided on a temporary basis on sites off site on the Haywood Expansion, Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard or Newport Village sites, or a combination thereof. F. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9 1. Approve Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9, make the following Findings, based upon the facts and subject to the Conditions listed below, FINDINGSi 1. That there are no social, technical, environmental or related problems associated with the provision of four affordable housing units. 2. That four affordable housing units could be provided and still allow a reasonable return on investment. 3. That development of the site is not exempt from the provisions of State law relative to low- and moderato -income housing in the Coastal Zone. 4. That 121 of the proposed 154 units will be stitched on a one -tar -one basis with affordable housing units on the Newport village, Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard or Haywood Expansion sites. .'-' ••. t FINAL FINDr"GS 4=ZTIOMS GPA 83-2c, A605, TS, TNT 11937, PCDP Mo. 9 Page -9 CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director, which guarantees the provision of four "affordable' units on site or off site in the Bayweod expansion. 2. Of the "affordable' units provided, three shall be affordable to a County median income family and one shall be affordable to a County moderate income family. 3. The affordability of the units shall be guaranteed for a period of at least ten years. 4. That development is subject to the review and approval of a Development Agreement for Newport Center as required by General Plan Amendment 83-1(e) (Portion). 5. That the Development Agreement shall include provisions for the phasing of the Villa Point project with the construction of affordable housing units on the Newport Village, Baywood Expansion or Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard sites. In the event one or more of those projects cannot be timed to coincide with the construction of this project, the City may allcm the appropriate number of affordable housing units to be provided on a tea;orary basis on site; off site on the Maywood Expansion, Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard or Newport Village sites, or a combination thereof. Planning Commission Meeting March 22, 1984 Agenda Item No. 4 CITY QP NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Cr-ission YR0l4: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. General Plan Amendment 83-2(c)(portion) (Public Hearing) Consideration of amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, redesignation of the site on the northeasterly corner of taut Coast Highway and Jamboree Road from "Low Density Residential* to "Recreational and Marine Cocuercial" for the purpose of consistency with the Certified band Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. 111ITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach AND B. Amendment No. 605 (Continued Public Hearinrl) Request to establish Planned Co=unity Development Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for property located at the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road, and the acceptance of an environmental document. 1=9 C. Traffic Stud (Continued Public Hearin ) Request to consider a Traffic Study for a 154 unit residential condominium development. AND D. Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 (Continued Public Hearin Request to subdivide 11.2 acres of land into a single lot for residential condominium purposes so as to allow the construction of a 154 unit residential development. Liu!] _p=_Pesidential Coastal Devela ment'Perwit No. 9 (Discussion) Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 154 unit T0: Plannioosssission - 2. residential condominium development pursuant to the adminis- trative guidelines for the implementation of the State law relative to low- and moderate -income housing within the Coastal Zone. LOCATIOTI; Portions of Blocks 55 and 94, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 12DO East Coast Highway, on the northeasterly corner of Jamboree Road and east Coast Highway, across from Irvine Terrace. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Irvine Pacific, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENG1NF.BR: Adams/Streeter, Civil Engineers, Irvine A lications Tho applications requested, if approved, will permit develolxnant of a 154 unit apartment/condominium project on the site located at 1200 East Coast Highway in Newport Center. The requests include an amendment to establish Planned Contunity District Regulations for the project site. Adoption of this amendment also requires an amendment to the Newport Beach General Plan for the commercial site in the Planned Community District Regulations. Approval of a Tentative Map is also requested so as to subdivide 24.7 acres into two lots for residential condominium purposes and one residual parcel. A Traffic Study has been prepared pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and Council Policy S-1 for the proposed development. Also requested is approval of a Coastal Residential Development Permit to establish project compliance with the City's guidelines for the implementation of State law relative to the provision of low- and moderate -income housing in the Coastal zone. Amendment procedures are set forth in Section 20.84 of the Municipal Code. Tentative Tract Map procedures are set forth in Chapter 19.12 of the Municipal Code. Environmental Significance An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Council Policy K-3. Based upon the contents of the environmental document, it has been determined that the project as conditioned will not ,result in a significant impact on the environment, On March 6, 1984, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was reviewed and discussed by the Citizens Environmental Quality Advisory Committee. A letter containing.its,comments:pq the project is attached to this report. Conformance With the General Plan The Land Use Z1408n't of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the residential portion of the site for low -density residential uses, which permits a maximum of four dwelling units per buildable acre. As a result of General TO: Plannitc mmission - 3.� • Plan Amendments 79-1'and 83=1(e), there is a pool of 423t units which are not allocated -to a specific location in Newport Center. These units may be developed on any site in Newport Center without further General Plan Amendment upon approval by the City. This project will use 121 of these floating units in addition to the 33 units already allocated to the site. The proposed Amendment No. 605, in addition to establishing development standards for the residential project, designates the site hounded by Jamboree Road, East Coast highway, and Back Bay Drive, for Commercial office/Visitor Serving use. This will require an amendment to the Land use and Residential Growth Klements of the General Plan. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Use The subject property consists primarily of vacant land, with thn area on the corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road developed with a gasoline service station, and the easterly area developed as a retail nursery. To the nort' is the Irvine Coast Country Club and Golf Course and the Sea island Condominium projects to the east is the Country club parking lot and vacant land across Clubhouse Drives to the south, across East Coast Highway, is the single-family residential area of Irvine Terraces and to the west, across Jamboree Road, is another gasoline service station and vacant land. Analysis Construction of this development will require approval of General Plan Amendment 83-2(c)(Portion), Amendment No. 605 to adopt Planned Community District Regulations, a Traffic Study, Tentative flap of Tract No. 11937, Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9, and the acceptance of an environ- mental document. Following is a discussion of the major characteristics of each application and the issues associated with each. General Plan Amendment 83.2(c)(Portion) On November 14, 1983, the City Council initiated an amendment to the General Plan to bring about compliance with the certified Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program. A portion of this amendment is being brought forward in conjunction with the proposed Villa Point apartment project (PCH Frontage). The Land Use Element of the General Plan currently designates the site for Low -Density Residential use. The Local Coastal program shows the site bounded by East Coast 'Highway, Back Bay Drive and Jamboree Road as Recreation and Karine 'coiercial, and the balance of the site as Medium -Density Residential. Since both the General plan and Local Coastal Program provide for the transfer of residential units in Newport Center, it is the opinion of staff that no -amendment to the existing Low -Density Residantial designation is necessary for the residential portion -of the project 'area. The MediuwDensity Residential designation was, shown for this area in the LCP only to indicate 'the probable location of 'transfer residential units 'onto this site. It will, be necessary, however, to ascend the General Plan land use de signation'for the,commsrcial site to designate it for Recreational and Karine Commercial use. Language will be added as follows 'The Coast Highway/Jamboree site is -shorn 'for Recreation and Plarine X6mmtrcial.,- office use- may be, ptiaitted on the sitev'provided traffic mitigation measures include fiscal"contribution to'a shuttle TO r Planno Commission - 4., ,system combined: with public parking in the garage. Office use should also include provisions for..an affordable visitoor•serving use such as a public vier deck and restaurant facility.' Amendment No. 605 Amendment No. 605 proposes to establish Planned Community District Regulations for the subject property. Those regulations establish the permitted uses within the residential and commercial areas as well as the minimum development standards applicable to the residential portion of the project. Any development of the commercial site will require an amendment to the Planned Community District Regulations to establish development criteria for this area. Development standards proposed for the residential site are outlined as follower Gross Acres: Buildable Acres: Dwelling Unite: Maxim= Density: Maximum Building Heights Setbacks: Streets Other Between Buildings Carport Setbacks: Streets Other Parking 12.9 8.2 154 du's 1 unit per 1500 sq.ft, of lot area (29 du'a/acrn) 32 ft. 20 ft. 5 ft. 10 ft, 20 ft. 0 ft, 2 spaces/du (1 covered) The proposed P-C text is attached for Planning Cossmission review. The standards as proposed are generally consistent with the development standards of other apartment/condominium projects in the City, with the following exception. Site Density (Page 6 of proposed text). This Site Density section provides a minimum 1500 sq.ft. standard for each dwelling unit. This is internally inconsistent with the statistical analysis of the proposed text and allows for a greater density than that requested in the project approval. It is the opinion of staff that this section be deleted from the P-C text, allowing the dwelling unit and acreage descriptions of the statistical analysis to control the density of the project (18.8 du's/buildable acre). The P-C text proposed shows the site on the corner of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road for.Office and Visitor-Serving,Cosmmercial, consistent with the LCP and proposed.General Plan land use designation. Staff recommends that the specific language of.the Local Coastal Program be added to section V (Page 8) of the P-C text, assfollows: "Office use may be permitted on the site provided traffi.e.aitigation measures include fiscal contribution to a shuttle system combined with publicparking in;ths,garage. ,Office use should also include provisions: for.an, affordable visitor -serving use;such as:a-public view.deck,and.restourant,facility.• r;. TO Planniatcomission - 5. • PARKING. The Planned Community District Regulations require a minim= of two parking spaces per dwelling unit. The plan as proposed shuts 319 parking spaces for 154-dwelling units or 11 parking spaces above the proposed standard. As part of the Environmental Impact Report, parking requlreaants and the adequacy of the proposed parking supply were studied. riald studies were conducted at Promontory Point and the Baywood Apartments in Newport Beach, and at the Turtle Rock Apartments in Irvine, to determine parking demands for similar projects. The following table illustrates the results of this study. APARTMENT PARKING SURVEY SUKKARY Parked Vehicles Parked Vehicles Location Date Day Time Legal Ills al Total per Unit Promwntory 8/13 Saturday 8:30 p.m. 554 5 559 1.08 Point 8/14 Sunday 6:30 a.m. 626 6 632 1.22 (52U units) 8/16 Tuesday 8:15 P.M. 542 5 547 1.05 B/17 Wednesday 600 a.m. 610 3 613 1.18 i3Aywood 0/13 Saturday Bs55 p.m. 346 16 362 1.13 (320 unite) 8/14 Sunday 6:50 a.m. 420 21 441 1.38 8/16 Tuesday 8:45 p.m. 321 B 329 1.03 8/17 Wednesday 6:25 a.m. 395 13 408 1.28 Turtle Rack 8/13 Saturday 9:15 p.m. 293 6 299 1.19 1252 units) 8/14 Sunday 7:20 a.m. 320 5 325 1.29 8/16 Tuesday 9:05 P.M. 294 3 297 1.18 8/17 Wednesday 6:45 a.m. 335 5 340 1.35 Nc7I'S: All three apartment complexes were 100% occupied at the time of the survey. The table indicates the maximum observed demand was 1.38 parked vehicles per dwelling unit. Based on this study, the proposed parking would be adequate for this project. AESTHETICS. The proposed project, if approved, will result in the construc- tion of a multiple -family residential apartment project. As proposed, the project consists of eight buildings, ranging from two to two and one-half stories, with a maximusi height of 32 feet. The buildings will have white stucco facades with red tile roofs, similar to Promontory point. While of a Rimilar design, the proposed project will not be of the same scale as Promontory Point. The southeasterly corner of the site falls within the sight plane area for Harbor View Hills. The maxisum height permitted by the sight plane in this location is 140 feet above sea level. Since the building pad in this location is 100 feet above sea level, the maximum height of any building will be 132 feet above sea level, which is within the height limit of the view plane. Figure 17 on Page 51 of the Draft EIR illustrates the Harbor View Hills sight plane. TO: PlannWommission - 6. NOISE. As indicated by Figure 21 on Page 71 of the Draft CXR, a portion of the project site is located within the projected 65 C M contemr line for East Coast Highway. Provision of noise barriers will be necessary for those areas experiencing unacceptable noise levels (65 CNEL for outdoor living areas, 45 CNEL for interior living areas). To mitigate these impacts, sound -attenuation barriers will be required. These will be a combination of walls and landscap- ing in the vicinity of the affected units. Additionally, specific design mitigation will be required in the affected units (such as glassed -in patios and one -eighth inch glass windows). Traffic Stud A Traffic Study was performed for the proposed development in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and City Policy S-1. The proposed project is expected to be completed in 1985. Analyses were therefore completed for 1986. The City Traffic Engineer has identified 27 intersections which could be affected by the project at full occupancy. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a 1% Traffic Volume Analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic, regional growth, and co:reaitted projects' traffic. For any intersection where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of the projected peak two and one-half hour volume, Intersection Capacity Utilization Analysis (ICU) is required. The 1% Traffic Volume Analysis identified six intersections where the project traffic exceeded It of the two and one-half hour peak traffic. The following chart sunmari:es the results of the 'Traffic Study for these six intersections as well as the improvements needed to meet the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. TO: Plannitoswission - 7. • ICU SUNKARY - 1986 - Existing Existing + Coemitted Existing + Coss;itted + Regional • 1983 Committed + Regional Project with Intersection Existing + Regional + Project y Improvem+ants Jamboree Road and Bristol Street 0.7797 0.9070 0.9188 0.7842 Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive 0.7190 0.8188 0.8329 Jamboree Road and San Joaquin }tills Road 0.6730 0.8507 0.8648 Jamboree Road and Ford Road 0.9225 1.0300 1.0529 0.8362 Jamboree Road and Bison Avenue 0.6607 0.8493 0.8534 Jamboree Road and Eastbluff Drive Borth 0.5933 0.6876 0.6918 1 Summary of recommended improvements: Intersection Jamboree Road/Bristol Street Jamboree Road/Ford Road System Improveewnt Add eastbound free right -turn lane. Required improvement of a previously -approved pro- ject. Add southbound through lane. Required by previously - approved projects. As shown, the two improvements needed to meat the requirements of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance have already been required of previously -approved projects. These improvements wust be made prior to occupancy of the proposed project. 0TNER CIRCUTATION SYSTEM IMPR0VEKENPS. As discussed in the section on the Tentative Tract Map, the project will be dedicating right-of-way for the extension of Back Bay Drive. This roadway will be required �to make full Improvements along Back Bay Drive Including curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement and street lights. Additionally, the developer will be required to construct a traffic signal at East Coast Highway and Back Biy'Drive as well ae contributing SO% of the cost of the traffic signal at Jamboree'Road-and Back Bay Drive. TO: Planni cossmission - 8. PAIR -SHARE. In the discretiorsary review of projects, the City has required contributions by developers to the "fair -share' improvements to the ultimate circulation system and also to the construction of sound -attenuation barriers on the southerly side of west Coast Highway in the West Newport area, adjacent to Irvine Terrace on East Coast Highway and adjacent to the Eastl}luff homes on Jamboree Road. Based on an estimated trip generation of 1,080 daily trips, the "fair -share' allocation for ultimate circulation system improvements will be approximately $231,120. This figure is based on $214 per daily trip generated. The noise wall fund contribution will be approximately $21,600r ),sped on $20 per daily trip. Conditions requiring contribution to the "fair -share" circu- lation and noise wall funds are included in the Findings and Conditions of Approval. Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 The tentative map encompasses a total of 24.7 gross acres, with 17.6 net acres and 7.1 acres for streets. Lot No. 1 is designated for apartments/condominiums and includes 11.2 gross acres and 8.5 net acres. Lot No. 2, also, is an apartment/condominium site and consists of 1.7 gross acres and 1.0 net acres. Lot No. 2 is the site of the existing retail nursery. A residual parcel (commercial site) is also shown and consists of 11.8 gro„s acres and 8.3 not acres. Street dedications required include an additional tan feet of right-of-way for East Coast Highway and the dedications necessary for the extension of Back Bay Drive. The tentative tract map subesitted does not properly show the needed right-of-way for East Coast Highway. Conditions to require adequate dedication have been included in the approval conditions for the tract map. ACCESS. Access to the site is provided via a main entrance on Back Bay Drive with a secondary access (right turn in - right turn out) on East Coast Highway. This access is considered adequate for the projects however, a better distribution of traffic and ease of exit could be achieved if an "exit only" drive were provided at the boundary of the apartment site and the Irvine Coast Country Club. This exit would allow traffic to exit the site along a frontage road leading to the signalised intersection of Clubhouse Drive and East Coast Highway. Implementation of this exit will require some reconfiguration of the units in this area. Provision of this exit has been included as a Condition of Approval for the Tentative flap upon the termination of the retail nursery use. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9 The project applicant has requested approval of Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9 for this proposal in order to comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 65590. In order to determine an affordable housing requirement for this project it is important to understand the origin of the units to be built on this site. The PCH Frontage site is designated on the General Plan as Low -Density 14ai- dential (4 du's/b.a.). This designation allows a maxim= of 33 dwelling units on site. The 121 dwelling units needed to bring the project up to the proposed 154 du"s come from the market rate pool of units established by General Plan AmerAment 83-1(e) as a one -for -one catch for affordable units to be constructed on the Newport Village, Baywood and the Sth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard TOs Plannintosmission - 9. sites. These market rate matching units can be located on any site in Newport Center upon approval by the City without further General Plan Aaendment and subject to adoption of a Development Agreement. Since the 121 floating units are already tied to the provision of affordable units on a one -for -one basis, it is the opinion of staff that any affordable housing provisions be applied only to the 33 units allocated by the General Plan to the Pacific Coast Highway Frontage site. The Rousing Element of the General Plan establishes a goal or 10% of housiny production to be affordable dwelling units. In the review of projects the City has required affordable housing in the range of 0% to 42%. It is the recommendation of staff that this project be required to untor into an agreement to provide a minimum of four (4) affordable dwellings on site or off site in the Baywood expansion. Further, this requirement is subject to the approval of a Development Agreement for the provision of affordable, housing on the Newport Village site. It should be noted that the construction financing of the project slay be done through a Mortgage Revenue Bond Program. If this occurs, 20% of the units will be affordable. COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DL"VF.IOPMFNT PERMIT F'US. In a letter dated February 29, 19R4, Irvine Pacific requested a reduction of the Coastal Residential Development Permit fee from $38,500 (based on 154 units) to $10,000 or less if the cost of processing the permit is less. Council Policy P-1 allows the Planning C'" ission to reduce or waive CRDP fees for projects of forty or more units. To date no waiver or reduction of fees has been approved. The CRD P fees are to be used for the processing and administration of Coastal Residential Development Permits and also to fund future administration of the affordable housing program. Since all agreements require the maintenance of affordable housing for a minimum ten year period, these fees are needed to defray costs over a long period of time. The project, as proposed, will result in the provision of 121 affordable housing units off site and four affordable housing units on site or off site, or a total of 125 affordable housing units. The $30,500 fee will be used to administer these 125 units over the required ten year period and equals $360 per affordable dwelling unit. If the fee is reduced to $10,000, the fee will equal $80 per affordable dwelling unit. It is the opinion of staff that the $380500 fee more closely reflects the present and future administrative costs of the City relative to the affordable housing units. Findings and Recommendation Staff recommends approval of these requests. should the Planning Commission desire to approve this proposal, the Findings and Conditions as set forth in Exhibit "A" are suggested. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICXER, Director by . PATRICIA LRR TEMPLE Envirora ntal Coordinator PLT/kk Hir Plannin commission - 10. Attachmentas 1. 3, 4. 5. 6. 7. Exhibit 'A" - Findings and Conditions for Approval Letter from CEQAC Letter from Irvine Pacific Draft Environmental Impact Report (Previously Distributed) Planned Community Development Regulations Tentative Tract Map No. 11937 - Site Plan Floor Plans, Elevations EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIOKS OF APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT GEI(ERAL PLAIT AMENDMENT 83-2 (c) (PORTION) AMENDMENT Ho. 605 TRAFFIC STUDY TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT No. 11937 COASTAL RiSIDrWIAL DEVELOPKKNT PERMIT No. 9 A. Environmental Document 1. Approve --he Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Newport Reach, Villa Point Apartments, Pacific Coast Ifighway Frontage, and supportive: materials; 2. Recomeaend that City Council certify the Environmental Document is complete; 3. Make the Findings listed below: FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in ccepliance with the California Envirormeental Quality Act (CEQA), the State EIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of this environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on the project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. B. General Plan Amendment'83-2(c)(Portion) 1. Adopt Resolution No. recommending to the City Co=cil the adoption of amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan for the Coast Highway/Jamboree site: C. Amendment No. 605 1. Adopt. Resolution go. recommending to the City Council the adoption of the Villa Point Planned Community District Rsqulations, incorporating any desired changes. D. Traffic Study 1. Approve the Traffic Study and make the following Findings, based upon the facts and subject to the Conditions listed below: FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyses the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy 5-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project -generated traffic will be greator than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of six critical inter- sections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at two critical intersections, which will have an Intersection Capacity Utiliza- tion of more than .9000. 3. That the Traffic Study suggests circulation system improvements which will improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level at all critical intersections. CONDITION: 1. That prior to occupancy of any portion of the project facilities, the circulation system improvements described in the Traffic Study to the intersections at Jamboree Road and Bristol Street and at Jamboree Road and .Ford Road will be in place prior to occupancy of the project. R. Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 I. Racminend that the City -Council approve the Tentative Hap of Tract No. 11937 subject to the following Findings and Conditions of Approval: Vt PINDINGSt 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed nubdivision presents ne, problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the site in physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 4, That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed oubdivision. CONDITIONS: 1. That a final map be filed. 2, That development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans submitted except as noted below. 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public ~forks Department. 4. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the street improve- ments, if it is desired to obtain a building permit or record the tract map prior to comple- tion of the public improvements. 5. That each duelling unit be sarved with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the public Works .Department. 6. That the on -site parking,, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. • -4- 0 7. That the design of the private streets and drives conform with the City's private street policy iL-4), except an approved by the Public Works Department. The basic roadway width shall bo a minimum of 32 feet. The location, width, con- figuration and concept of the private street and drive system shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer, and the Fire Department. 8. That the intersection of the private streets with Public streets be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 milun per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other Obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requiresients. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non -critical locations, subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 9. That the California Vehicle Code b4i enforced on the private streets and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works Department be provided along the sidelines of the private streets and drives. 10. That no control gate at the entrance shall be allowed unless the entrance area is redesigned to allow for a turn -around to be provided prior to the gate. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. 11. The easements for ingress, egress and public utility purposes on all private streets be dedicated to the City, and that all easements be shown on the tract strap. 12. That asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with the width to be approved by the Public Works Department. 13. That all vehicular access rights to East Coast Highway be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach except for one access point, with the location to be approved by the Public Works Department. 24. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recrea- tion Department and the Public Works Department. 15. That .street, drainage and -utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer.. 16., That a hydrology, and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -sits improvements prior to recording of the final clap. Any modiflcationn or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 17. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demon- strate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's utilities Department. 18. That a maximum of ton feet of pedestrian easement or additional right-of-way be dedicated to the public for street and highway purposes along tho East Coast highway Frontage adjacent to Lots No. 1 and 2, and the residual parcel, with the exact amount to be determined by the Public Works De- partment. This right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City prior to June 1, 1984. 19. That additional right-of-way be dedicated to the public for street and highway purposes along Back Bay Drive from Jamboree Road to East Coast Highway. The roadway shall have a minimum right-of-way width of 72 feet and a maximum width of 82 feet. 20. That full improvements be constructed along Back Bay Drive from Jamboree Road to East Coast 111ghway. These improvements shall include but not be limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement and street lights. 21. That the _developer.construct a traffic signal at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive. The plans fox the traffic signal shall be reviewed and .approved by the Public Works Department. This signal shall be installed prior tooccupancy unless ,,otherwise approved by the Publia,Works Department. ; A separate agreement and surety may be,pxovided;for this work. 22. That the developer be responsible for 50% of the cost of the traffic signal at the intersection of Jamboree Road with Back Bay Drive. A separate agreement and surety should be provided. 23. That the developer contribute to the City the cost Of improving Bast Coast Highway to major highway standards along the proposed tract frontage which runs from Back Bay Drive easterly to the easterly boundary of the tract. This contribution shall be deposited with the City prior to recording any tract maps or issuance of any grading or building perwits. 24. The Irvine Company shall provide for approximately 1,100 linear feet of an off -site storm drain, from the Jamboree Road intersection down Hack bay Drive to the existing storm drain inlet structure at the Back Bay. This stor* drain shall be constructed concurrently with project construction. 25. A storm drain shall be provided as part of the project, to channel surface waters from the project site and a portion of Bast Coast Highway to the master -planned off site storm drains. This storm drain shall be constructed concurrently with project construction. 26. That the location of fire hydrantu and water mains shall be approved by the Fire Department. 27. That emergency access to and within the site shall be approved by the Fire Department. 28. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 29. That a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants.• 30. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping programs designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 31. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department,,and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region." 32. The velocity of concentrated runoff from, the project shall be evaluated, and erosive velocities controlled -aa 'part of the project design. as 33. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with -.plans prepared by a civil 'engineer and based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a ccoprehensive soil and geologic investigation Of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the `Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 34. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flare from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Departments. 35. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Engineer. 36. All proposed development shall provide for vacuum sveeping of parking areas. 37. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the developer and grading contractors of the results of the study. In addition, an- archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the under- lying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeolo- gist shall have the authority to stop or tempor- arily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the finds. 38. In the event that significant archaeological ruins .are, uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The,cost of such a program 'shall be the respon- sibility of the landownerand/or developer. 39. A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and/or developer to attend pregrade wN tings;and perform -inspections during develop- ment. Tha paleontologist 'shall be allowed to divert, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. :.40. Should. .fossils be discovered during grading operations, the'landowner shall donate the"fossils collected to a non-profit institution. ,.:YA 41. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant:shall waive the provisions of AB952 related to City of Newport aerch respon- sibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts, in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney., 42. That prior to the occupancy of any unit, a qualified accoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant's expense, shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the noise impact from East Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive on the project does not exceed 65 db CNEL for outside living areas and the reguire- mOnts of law for interior spaces. 43. Prior to issuance of any building permits author - 'red by the approval of this tentative map, the applicant shall deposit with the City's Finance Director the sum proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for the construc- tion of a sound attenuation barrier on the southerly side of West Coast Highway in the west Newport Area and in the Irvine Terrace and Jamboree Road areas. This contribution is estimated to be $21,600, based on 1,080 daily trips at $20 per trip. 44. Prior to the issuance of any building and/or grading permit, the applicant shall pay its "fair - share" of circulation systems improvements for the ultimate circulation system. This contribution is estimated to be $231,120, based on 1,000 daily trips at $214 per trip. 45. That prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, approved by the City Attorney and the Planning Director, which guarantees the provision Of four "affordable" units on site or off site in the Villa point Apartment project. 46.. Of the "affordable" units provided, three shall be affordable to a County median income family and one shall be affordable to a County moderate income family. 47., The affordability of the units shall be guaranteed for a period of at least ten years. 48. .That• prior to the issuance of any building Permits, the applicant shall satisfy the regaire- Mnts_of the Park Dedication Ordinance to the satisfaction of the.Planning Director. 49. Signage.and-exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 50. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded or screened from view by architectural features. 51. Upstairs patio areas will be glassed in for all areas within the 65 CliEL contour. Units within these buildings will also be provided with aluminum sliding windows of normal 1/0 inch thickness. Downstairs units within the 65 CREL contour will be shielded from the noise source by a barrier approved by the Planning Director, 52. Parking areas shall be paved early during construction. 53. Openahle windawo shall be used to allow cooling by normal breezes. 54. A lighting plan which describes how enorgy conser- vation has been incorporated into Lilo lighting schema shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Department. 55. A solar hot water system will be installed for the community pool and spa. 56. Prior to approval of the final subdivision snap, the applicant shall consult with the Public Works Department; and the Orange County Transit District regarding the provision of a bun stop and related amenities (i.e., shelter, bench) along East Coast Highway adjacent to the project site. The applicant shall be responsible for the instal- lation of a permanent bus stop along East Coast Highway subsequent to widening of the highway in 1985-66.. An interim bus stop with access to the project bite may be provided until that time. 57. The City;of Newport Beach requires each project to provide for all necessary roadway improvements. Several improvements have been required of previously -approved projects but are not yet con- structed. The project will be required to contribute to or provide full improvements to intersections identified in the Traffic Study. 58. That a minimm 16 foot wide, one -way-out drive be provided through Lot No. 7 to the existing frontage road adjacent to the golf course parking area. This drive would not be provided until the nursery use is terminated. t. Coastal Residential Devel nt permit go. 9 1. Approve Coastal Residential Development permit No. 9, make the following Findings, based upon the facts and subject to the Conditions listed below: FINDINGS: 1. That there are no social, technical, environmental or related problems associated with the provision of four affordable housing units. 2. That four affordable housing units could be provided and still allow a reasonable return on investment. 3. That development of the site is not exempt from the provisions of State law relative to low- and moderate -income housing in the Coastal Zone, 4. That 121 of the proposed 154 units will be matched on a one -far -one basis with affordable housing units on the Newport Village, Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard or Baywood Expansion sites. CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director, which guarantees the provision of four "affordable" units on site or off site in the Villa point apartment project. 2. Of the "affordable" units provided, three shall be affordable to a County median income family and one shall be affordablo to a County moderate income family. 3. The affordability of the units shall be guaranteed for a period of at least ten years. 4. That development is subject to the review and Approval of a Development Agreement for Newport Center as required by General plan Amendment 83-1 M (Portion). CIT,' 0,,,,E NEWPORT BEACH P.U. kixX 768. NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663.3884 <i CITLEM$ E1NIf101MEMlAL QWILI?X,11msoRX'. CONNI"= March 8, 1904 City of Newport Reach Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663 SUBJECTS Villa Point Elk Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, After reviewing the villa Point P.IR and discussing it with the project developers and the FIR consultants, The Citizenn Environrmontnl Quality Advisory Committee would like to draw your attention to the following items: 1. The EIR identifies the drainage from the site as contributing to a "significant cumulative impact' on the water quality of the back Say. At whet level of impact would additional mitigation measures be required? 2. There is a concern that the new traffic signals at both ends (Jamboree and East Coast Highway) of Back Bay Drive will inhibit the flow of traffic unnecessarily. The traffic circulation plans for the project might be re-examined to see if these additional signals can be avoided. 3. The sound attenuation barriers should include landscaping as well as a wall1 they should also be compatible with those in, adjacent projects whenever possible, l y R S Your consideration of these issues in your deliberationelis greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, CITIZENS 2XVINONMENTAL QUALITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 'BY Mary. xogl h chairman y'{ MLZePTitn 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach ;r _ Rh:S�x'V.� k �N � 1f �: � �! {J{7�J�� G1fi�t�hEtT� � f� ��y#•IV �!� h�rl � { +x�=` ,� ��. Yjl �i }+ t� . "x ', iti' � J 1f;,;.'•, O��r�rWs%ill 'j Attacturnt 3 February 29, 1984 Mr. James D. Hewicker Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Villa Point Apartments Coastal Residential „Development Permit Fete Dear Jim: The Villa Point Apartment project consists of 154 units. At time of submittal, we were required to pay a fee of $38.500, or $250 per unit. An allowed by Council Policy P-1, we are requesting a reduction in this fee to $10,000, or the City's actual cost of processing this application, if the cost is less than $10,000. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Si cerely. ames Y Projecti cs hntgomery actor g [ CD Osv�� S MAR 1 ` '�. Wv r ' 610 Newpon Canter Odve l P.O. Boot I 1 Nwipon Bew h i wftrds 92mw s ('114) 72OaW • - CCWI • !larch 8, 19&1 M MUTES Ex g City of Newt Beach Notion Ayes Absent E .I .Ixl'x A. Amendment No. 605 (Public Hearing) AND B. Traffic Stu (Public Hearing) AND C. Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 (Public Hearing) i AND D. Coastal Develocrient Pormit No, 9 j D scums on LOCATIONt Portions of Blocks 55 and 94, irvine'a Subdivision, located at 1200 East Coast Highway, on the northeasterly corner of Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway, across from Irvine Terrace, TONE: P-C APPLICANT: Irvine Pacific, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ENGINEER: Adams/Streeter, Civil Engineers, Irvine Staff reconsended that these applications be continued to the Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1984, to as to allow time to renotice for the General Plan Amendment. Notion was made to continue this item to the Planning Commaission fleeting of March 22, 1984, which MOTION CARRIED. . • • -46- Item #10 A 605 TS TXT 11937 CDP 11) Continued to March 22, 1984 Planning Commission Meeting March r,I_1984 Agenda Item No. 10 CITY OF N£WPORT BEACH TOO Planning Commission rRoH: Planning Department SUBJECTr A. Amendment No.�605 (Public Hearing) Request to establish Planned Community Dovelopment Standards and adopt a Planned Conounity Development Plan for property located at the northeastarly corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road, and the acceptance of an environmental document. A11D P. Traffic Study (Public Hearing) Request to consider a Traffic Study for a 154 unit residential condominium development. AND C. Tentative Map_of.Tract No. 11937_ (Public 11earing) Request to subdivide 11.2 acres of land into a single lot for residential condominium purposen no as to allow the construction of a 154 unit residential development. AND D. Residential Coastal Develo nt Permit No. 9 Request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 154 unit residential condominium development pursuant to the administrative guidelines for the implementation of the State Law relative to low -and -moderate -income housing within the Coastal Zone. LACATIONs Portions of Blocks 55 and 94, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 1200 East Coast Highway, on the northeasterly corner of Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway, across from Irvine Terrace. ZONE: P-C 7- • L.J Tot Planning Commission -2. APPLICANTi Irvine Pacific, Newport Beach CMNERs The Irvine Company, Newport Beach ElIGINEERi Adams/Streeter, Civil Engineers, Irvine Pecommndation Staff recommends that these applications be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 1964, so as to allow time to renotice for the General Plan Amendment. PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. REWICKER, Director 1 � Patricia Temple Environmental Coordinator PTstn February 29, 1984 Mr. James D. Hewicker Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd P. 0. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3884 Villa Point Apartments Coastal Residential Development Permit Fee Dear Jim: The Villa Point Apartment project consists of 154 units. At time of subimittal, wet were required to pay a fee of $38,500, or $250 per unit. As allowed by Council Policy P-1, we are requesting a reduction in this fee to $10,000, or the City's actual cost of processing this 'application, if the cost is less than $10,000. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Si cerelp- angs mery Project r co r., ' � � e � - • • �,x. f ray,.' ggrMOOS CE{VED D9iwv S MAR 1 14 W ' ar itx�jJJj\j` CAMOIL /\ !'Hi\'AA ,i CITY OF KEWPORT BEACH . PLA=rXG DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUEST Date rebru4a 22, 1984 ,PUBLIC PLANNING DIVISION _PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT X PLANS ATTACUEn (PI.EASF pETURti) TRAFFIC ENGINEER FIRE DEPARTMENT PLAN LAN!tlNr, i)rpT. �PLAX REVIEW DIVISION � r PARKS 6 RECREATION �POI.ICE DEPARTHEMr XARINE SAFETY S GRADING APPLICATIOti OF Irvine Pacific r;cop FOR Coastal Residential Develo nt Permit No. 9 Request to consider a Coastal Residential Develorpmme r the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 154 unit res ential condominium development pursuant to Administrative Cuidelinos for the imnlwy*ntation of the State law relative to low-and-modaratL- income hcusincg in the coastal zone. LOCATED ATs 1200 F. Coast ilwy. REPORT RFVUF.STEI) BY3 February 28, 198 L COMMISSION REVIEW: March 8, 1984 �cs 4_PUL'O �- / ♦ 1 yam! `� Gt c� 47.7 :Li ( A. Ai 'poki,r) K M 0 Match 22, 1984 , SEES L. . A. General Plan Amendment 83-2(0) (Portion) (Public Itam 44 Fsaa_ ring) Consideration of wwrdmsnt to the Land Use and GUM PAL Residential Growth Elemgnta of the Newport Beach PLAN General Plan, redesignation of the site on the AMENDMENT northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road from "Low Density Residential" to "Recreational 8383 and Marine Coessercial" for the purpose of consistency and with the Certified Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program. AMENEMENT INITIATED BYi The City Newport of N Beach NO. 605 AND and B. Amendment No. 605 (Continued Public Nearing) TRAFFIC - STUDY Request to establish Planned Coewunity Development and Standards and adopt a Planned Coessunity Development pm Plan for property located at the northeasterly corner TENTATIVE of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road, and the or acceptance of an environmental document. TRACT11937 AND and C. Traffic study (Continued Public Hearing) RESIDENTIAL TAL M LOP JT Request to consider a Traffic Study for a 154 unit residential condominium development.PERMIT PERMIT NO. NO y— AND D. Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 (Continued Public ALL Hear n�) APPk0VED Request to subdivide 11.2 acres of land into a single CD?tDr- — 77p�y lot for residential condominium purposes so as to allow the construction of a 154 unit residential development. AND E. Residential Coastal Devgl No. 9 D iscvse Request to consider a Residential Coastal DMIOpment Peewit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 154 unit residential aon&nInitmm -28- • � , ,«aIY1MDDR�l�] WAAES March 22, 1984 0 x � w ; w � � i i � Beach F development pursuant to the administrative quideiine s for the implementation of the State law relative to low- and r klerate-income housing within the coastal Zone. LOCATION: Portions of Blocks 55 and 94, Irvire•s Subdivision, located at 2200 East Coast Highway, on the northeasterly corner of Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway, across from Irvine Terrace. 7.011E s P-C APPLICANT: Irvine Pacific, Newport Beach OIMERi The Irvine Company, Newport Beach MINEER: Adams/Streeter, Civil Engineers, Irvine The public hearing opened in connection with this item and Mr. Dave Dmohowski, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission, Mr. Dswhowski referred to Page 3 of the staff report and expressed his concern with the proposed language to be added to the General Plan, as it relates to the fiscal contribution to a shuttle system combined with public parking. He stated that it would be more appropriate to address this issue when a specific commercial development is proposed for the site. Mr. Dmohowski referred to Page 9 of the staff report, relating to the coastal residential development permit fees and requested a reduction in the fee. He also referred to a letter dated tebruary 29, 1904, from the applicant, Irvine Pacific, which also requests a reduction in this fee, or the City•s actual cost of processing the application, if the cost is less than $10,000. Ms. Patricia Temple, Environmental Coordinator, distributed suggested revisions wrd additions to conditions of approval as outlined in uhibit wAs. The proposed changes are as follwss Traffic Study, Condition No. 1, to include "(unless subsegumet project approval requires modification thereto). Thu, circulation system improvements shall be subject to the -29- / 5— KWCTES • March 22, 1984 approval of the City Traffic Engineer"i Tentative Ma of Tract No. 11937, Condition lio. 45, to AC u4e 'in the Baywood earpansion"o Condition No. 57, to include "necessary for this project" and "(unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto). The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic angineer," Additional Condition No. 59, "That development is subject to the review and approval by the City of a Development Agreement for X@wport Center as required by General Plan Amendment No. 83-1{e}1 arid, Coastal Residential Develo nt Permit No. 9, Condition No. I, to nclude "in the Baywood expansion". Mr. Dmohowski stated that the proposed changer would be acceptable. However, he than referred to Condition No. 41 of the Tentative Tract, relating to the waiver of AB952 for the mitigation of archaeological i"cts, and stated that the condition is not appropriate. He then referred to Condition No. 44 of the Tentative Tract, and requested that credit also be received against future "fair -share" for the commercial portion of the overall development site, or reimbursement out of the PAU funds to ccuplete the Coast Highway widening along the commercial portion. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Balalis, Mr. Dmohowski clarified that in consideration for the dedication of right-of-way, which amounts to several of acres of land, they are requesting that the dedication satisfy any "fair -share" requirement that may be imposed as a result of the future ,C wrcial development. Mr. Donald Webb, City engineer, referred to Condition No. 44, and suggested that the following wording be addedr "In lieu of a monetary fair -share contribution, the City will consider the dedication of the additional right-of-way needed for the Coast Highway widening project between Jamboree Road and Bayside Drive to fulfill this condition. This dedication would include only the land owners interests in the De Anza Village area and be further defined as needed by the Public Works Department.' Rer. Drotwwrki stated that this would be acceptable. -30- MATES • March 22, 1984 • In response to questions posed by Commissioner Xurlander and Chairman King, Mr. Webb srplaine4 the EAU widening project for Coast Highway from MacArthur Boulevard to Bayside Drive and the process in which the dedication will be obtained. Commissioner Person suggested that Condition No. 44, as suggested by Mr. Webb, should be revised to delete the word "consider", and replace with the word •accept". Mr. Webb stated that this would be acceptable. Mr. Robert Gabriel*, Assistant City Attorney, suggested an additional finding for the Tentative Tract, Willis, follows: "6) That the proposed develoomnt generate an increase in daily trips sufficient in magnitude to warrant a fair share assessment to mitigate the increased traffic congestion and traffic noise resulting from the cumulative affect of additional traffic generated by commercial, office and multiple residential development in the center." Commissioner Kurlander referred to Condition No. 56 of the Tentative Tract and asked if a bus turn -out is being proposed at this location. Mr. Webb stated that at this time, there has not been a final determination from the Orange County Transportation District. C•ammi ssion*r Xurlander suggested additional wording, that if additional right-of-way is needed for the bus turn -oat, the dedication shall be required. Mr. Webb stated that this would be acceptable. Commissioner Kurlander stated that bus turn -outs are beneficial to the City because they do not interrupt the flow of traffic. Mr. Bruce Martin, representing Irvine Pacific, stated that such a condition would be acceptable. He stated that he has discussed this with the Public Yorks Department and suggested that it be placed on the residual parcel, between Back Bay Drive and jamboree tload, as opposed to placing it imm"lately adjacent to the residential units. Mr. Webb stated that this would be the most appropriate location. In response to a question posed by Cosissloner Balalis, Mr. Dmohowski stated that the affordable units are proposed to be provided on -site, assvwing that _31- T� y • !larch 22, 1984 i ~ES 0 mortgage revenue bond financing can be obtained for the project. He further stated that approximately 33 affordable units would be provided on -site, In addition, he stated that the total number of proposed units relies an the transfer of a pool of floating units which would be built in Newport Village, for a total of approximately 150 affordable units to be provided. In response to a question posed by Cowmissioner ealalis, Mr. Webb stated that the street as proposed, will provide for six foot bike trails on both sides of the street. In response to concerns expressed by COMissioner 8alalis, Mr. Webb referred to Condition No. 50 of the Tentative Tract and discussed the proposed and existing entrances on Coast Highway. He stated that a one -gray- out drive would be provided through Lot No. 2 to the existing frontage road. However, he stated that this would not be provided until the nursery use is terminated. Planning Director Hewicker suggested that rather than making access on the east and of the property mandatory, he suggested that the following wording be added, "At such time as the nursery site is redeveloped, consideration will be given to closing the driveway onto Coast Highway." He stated that in this way, a slight redesign at the easterly and of the project to set one of the buildings back could accommodate a full connection, if it was deemed necessary. Chairman king expressed his concern with securing the easement. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Goff, Mr. Webb stated that it is the widening of Coast Highway which is reducing the frontage road. Commissioner Goff suggested that the potential problem should be confronted at thin time. Mr. Webb stated that there should be flexibility to design a two -nay roadway, recognising that this may not be possible. -32- Motion All Aye x Ix Ix 0 March 22, 1964 mmim Commissioner person suggested the following additional lanqua" to Condition Igo. 58, •That if dstersined to he feasible and desirable by the Public Works oepertnent, the applicant shall provide two-way ingress and egress from the Irvine Gast Country Club and eliminate the right turn access at the nursery site. Planning Director Hewicker suggested that Condition No. 58 be revised an follows, "That the driveway be designed for two-way ingress and egress it deterained to be feasible by the Public Works Departaent and that it not be provided until the nursery use is terminated. Further, that the driveway onto Coast Highway be closed, if feasible." Chairuan King concurred with the intent of the proposed language, however, he expressed his concern that there is no way of knowing the type of use which would be established on the property when the nursery use is terminated. Commissioner Balalis stated that the exit which is being discussed should be wade available, regardless of the redevelopment of the ra�rsary use. Mr. Webb clarified that the nursery site is a portion of the tract map. Motion was made for approval of the General Plan Amendment ISO. 83.2(c) (portion), Amendment No. 605, Traffic Study, Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 and Residential Coastal Development permit No. 9, subject to the findings and conditions of Wibit "A", Including the revisions and additions as suggested by the Environmental Coordinators including the additional finding as suggested by the Assistant City Attorneys including the revised condition as suggested by the City Engineers Condition No. 56 to include, that if required, the applicant shall be responsible for the dedication and installation of a permanent bus stop Along East Coast Highways and, Condition no. 59 be revised as suggested by the Planning Director, which MMOR CARAI ED r A. Environmental Document 1. Approve the Draft Environmental Impact Report. City of Newport Beach, Villa point Apartmsnta, Pacific Coast Highway Frontage, and smQportive materials ,33_ ma, CUfVI March 22, 19e4 •TEs 9 r • w 2. Recommend that the City Council certify the Environmental Document is complete, 3. Make the Findings listed below, FINDINGS i 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California environmental Quality Act (CBQA) , the state SIR Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of this environmental docu■ent have been considered in the various decisions on the project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposed project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. B. General Plan AMMIMent 83-2 (c) (portion) 1. Adopt Resolution No. 1119, recommending to the City Council the adoption of amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Rlesients of the Newport Beach General plan for the Coast Highway/ Jamboree site. C. Amendment No. 605 1. Adopt Resolution No. 1119, recommending to the City council the adopt on of the Villa Point Planned Community District Regulations, incorporating any desired changes. D. Traffic St 1• Approve the Traffic Study and make the following Findings, based upon the facts and subject to the conditions listed below: -34- L M, IPZWLUTION NO. ,1118 RESCU PEON NO. 1119 March 22, 1984 #X ;� in d L tBeach FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 1S.40 of the Newport Mach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project -generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of six critical inter- sections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at two critical Intersections, which will have an Intersection Capacity utiliza- tion of more than .9000. ]. That the Traffic Study suggests circulation system improvements which will improve the Tavel of traffic service to an acceptable level at all critical intersections. CONDITIONi 1, That prior to occupancy of any portion of the project facilities, the circulation system improvements described in the Traffic Study to the Intersections at Jamboree bad anA Bristol Street and at Jamboree Road and Ford Road will be in place (unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto). The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Enginier. E. Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 1. Recommend that the City Council approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 subject to the following Findings and Conditions of Approval, YINDINGSt I. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Reach Municipal Code, all ordinance■ of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Comission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. -35- MWES AM CAA nnnro��wo i March 22, 1984 ~ESUY Of N�wt Beach �DE)c 2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning standpoint. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of developsbnt. 4, That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problms. S. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within tho proposed subdivision. 6. That the proposed development will generate an increase in daily trips sufficient in magnitude to warrant a fair share assessment to mitigate the increased traffic congestion and traffic noise resulting from the cumulative affect of additional traffic generated by cosssercial, office and multiple residential developsent in the center. COMITIO"S3 1. That a final map be filed. 2. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans substitted except as noted below. 3. That all Improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 4. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the street improve- ments, if it is desired to obtain a building periit or record the tract sap prior to comple- tion of the public isprovamernts. S. That each dwelling unit be seared with an individual water service and ewer lateral connection to the public water and sever systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. -36- ss! .• MUTES !larch 2 2 , 1984 iCity of NftqW Beach RM cAu �c b. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Cngineer. 7. That the design of the private streets and drives conform with the City's private street policy (W), except as approved by the Public Works Department. The basic roadway width *hail be a ainimm of 32 feet. The location, width, con- figuration and concept of the private street and drive system shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer, and the Tire Department. 8. that the intersection of the private streets with public streets be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of +5 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the might distance requirements. i.andscaping within the might distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The might distance requirownt may be modified at non -critical locations, subject to the approval of the City Traffic fnginaer. 9. That the California Vehicle Code be enforced on the private street@ and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works Department be provided along the sidelines of the private street@ and drives. lo. That no control gate at the entrance shall be allowed unless the entrance area is redesigned to allow for a turn -around to be provided prior to the gate. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department and the Tire Department. 11. The sasewents for ingress, egress and public utility purposes on all private streets be dedicated to the City, and that all easesonts be shorn on the tract msp. 12. That asphalt or concrete access roads shall be Provided to all public utilities, vaults, "Aholes, and junction structure locations, with the width to be apprnwd by the Public Works Department. -37- 7iir!1 AM CALL 0 March 22, 1984 • la. That all vehicular access rights to Bast coast Highway be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach except for one access point, with the location to be approved by the public Works Department. 14. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the parks, Beaches and Recrea- tion department and the public Works Department. 15. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 16. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the final map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer system shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 17. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demon- strate to the satisfaction of the public works Department and the Planning Department that adequate saner facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the orange County Sanitation District and the City's [Utilities Department. 18. That a aaxLmum of tan feet of pedestrian easement or additional right-of-w4y be dedicated to the public for street and highway purposes along the East Coast Highway Frontage adjacent to Lots mo. 1 and 2, and the residual parcel, with the exact amount to be determined by the public Works De- partment. This right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City prior to June 1, 1964. 19. That additional right-of-way be dedicated to the public for street and higtmray Piryoses along Back Bay Drive from Jamboree Mad to Last Coast Highway. The roadway shall have a minion right-of-way width of 72 fset and a aaxiwm width of 82 feet. -38- AOCTES L� March 22, 1994 • WVTES yc • a r C,tv 20. That full improvements be constructed along Mck Bay Drive from Jamboree Road to Bast Coast Highway. These isprovemsnts shall include but not be limited to curb, qutter, sidewalk, pavmont and street lights. 21. That the developer construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Bast Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive. The plans for the traffic signal shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. This signal shall be installed prior to occupancy unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. A separate agreement and surety way be provided for this work. 22. That the developer be responsible for 5os of the cost of the traffic signal at the intersection of Jamboree Road with Back Bey Drive. A separate agreement and surety should be provided. 23. That the developer contribute to the City the cost Of improving East Coast Highway to major highway standards along the proposed tract frontage which runs from sack Bay Drive easterly to the easterly boundary of the tract. This contribution shall be deposited with the City prior to recording any tract maps or issuance of any grading or building permits. 24. The Irvine Company shall provide for approximately 1,100 linear feet of an off -site storm drain, from the Jamboree Road intersection down Back Bay Drive to the existing storm drain inlet structure at the Back Bay. This storm drain shall be constructed concurrently with project construction. 25. A storm drain shall be provided as part of the project, to channel surface waters from the project site and a portion of Bast Coast Highway to the master -planned, off site storm drains. This storm drain shall be constructed concurrently with Project construction. 26. That the location of fire hydrants and water mains shall be approved by the Fire Departmment. 37. That emergency access to and within the site shall be approved by the Fire bepattaMt. -39- W"ES �x �i ci4V AM CAU March 22, 1984 28. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the building 4n4 Planning Departments. 29. That a grading plan shall include a cosiplete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other rater pollutants. 30. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping programs designed to minimize impact of haul operations. 31. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the building Department, and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Dater Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 32. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated, and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 33. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a civil engineer and based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the *Approved as Built' grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Depart- ment. 34. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not increase erosion Immediately downstream of the system. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning AM Building Departments. 3S. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Bngineer. -40- ssi I?< ' Ltd • March 22, 1984 • ~E5 Fr r� a � I g"Ir Of t Beach BOLL GU �X 36. All proposed development shall provide fur vacuum sweeping of parking areas. 37. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the dayslr4wr and grading contractors of the results of the study. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the under- lying aoil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeolo- gist shall have the authority to stop or tempor. arily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the finds. 38. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The coat of such a program shall be the respon- sibility of the landowner and/or developer. 39. A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and/or developer to attend pregrade meetings and perform inspections during develop- ment. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. 40. Should fossils be discovered during grading operations, the landowner shall donate the fossils collected to a non-profit institution. 41. Prior to issuance of any grading or demolition Permits, the applicant shall valve the provisions of AB952 related to City of Newport Beach respon- sibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts► in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 42, That prior to the occupancy of any unit, a qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant's expense, shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that the noise impact from East Coast 1ligWay and Back Bay Drive on the project does not exceed bS db CI[EL for outside living areas and the require- ments of law for interior spaces, -41- M • March 22, 1984 9 fs 43. Prior to issuance of any building permits author- ised by the approval of this tentative sap, the applicant shall deposit with the City's rinence Director the suer proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for the oonstruc- tion of a sound -attenuation barrier on the southerly side of West Coast Highway in the West Newport Area and in the Irvine 'terrace and Jamboree Road areas. This contribution is estimated to be $21,600, based on 1,080 daily trips at $20 per trip. 44. Prior to the issuance of any building and/or grading permit, the applicant shall pay its "fair - share" of circulation systems improvements for the ultimate circulation system. This contribution to estimated to be $231,120, based on 1,0B0 daily trips at $214 per trip. In lieu of a monetary fair -share contribution, the City will accept the dedication of the additional right-of-way needed for the Coast Highway widening project between Jamboree Road and 8ayside Drive to fulfill this condition. This dedication would include only the land owners interests in the De Anxa Village area and be further defined as needed by the Public Works Department. 45. That prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, approved by the City Attorney and the Planning Director, which guarantees the provision of four "affordable" units on site or off site in the Baywood expansion. 46. 0f the "affordable" units provided, three shall be affordable to a County median income family and one shall be affordable to a County moderate income family. 47. The affordability of the units shall be guaranteed for a period of at least ten years. 48. That prior to the issuance of any building Permits, the applicant shall satisfy the require- ments of the Park Dedication ordinance to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. -42- 0 77 r Rai JCAU March 22, 1984 i 49. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 50. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equipment shall be shielded or screened from view by architectural features. 51. Upstairs patio areas will be glassed in for all areas within the 65 CNEL contour. units within these buildings will also be provided with aluminum sliding windows of normal 1/8 inch thickness. Downstairs units within the 65 CNL1. contour will be shielded from the noise source by a barrier approved by the planning Director. 52. Parking areas shall be paved early during construction. 53. Operable windows shall be used to allow cooling by normal breezes. 54. A lighting plan which describes how energy conser- vation has been incorporated into the lighting scheme shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Department. 55. A solar hot water system will be installed for the community pool and spa. 56. Prior to approval of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall consult with the Public Works Department and the Orange County Transit District regarding the provision of a bus stop and related amenities (i.e., shelter, bench) along Last Coast Highway adjacent to the project site. The applicant shall be responsible for the instal- lation of a permanent bus stop along Cast Coast Highway subsequent to widening of the highway in 1985.86. An interim bus stop with access to the Project site may be provided until that bins. If required, the applicant sha11 be responsible for the dedication and installation of a psrmmnt bus stop along oast Coast Cighwsy. -43- NV"ES sew ' March 22, 1984 FA ■ s t Of Bexh "I CAU 57. The City of Newport Beach requires each project to provide for all rAcessary roadway improvements. Several improvements necessary for this project have been required of previously -approved projects but are not yet constructed. The project will be required to contribute to or provide full improvements to intersections identified in the Traffic Study (unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto). The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 58. That the driveway be designed for two-way ingress and egress if determined to be feasible by the Public Works Department and that it not be provided until the nursery use is terminated. Further, that the driveway onto Coast highway be closed, if feasible. 59. That development is subject to the review and approval by the City of a Development Agreement for Newport Center as required by General Plan Amendment No. 83-1(e) . F. Coastal Residential Development Permit No.'9 1. Approve Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9, duke the following Findings, based upon the facts and subject to the Conditions listed below: FINDINGSt 1. That there are no social, technical, environmental or related problems associated with the provision of four affordable housing units. 2. That four affordable housing units could be provided and still allow, a reasonable return on investment. 3. That development of the aite is not exempt from the provisions of state law rtlative to low- and moderate -income haosinq in the Coastal Lone. -44 ~ March 22, 1464 . M Uy of Nmwt (each 4. That 121 of the proposed 154 units will be match64 on a one -for -one basis with affordable housing units on the Newport Village, Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard or eayrood Expansion sitea, CDITIONS s I. That prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director, which guarantees the provision of four "affordable" units on site or off site in the Haywood expansion. 2. Of the "affordable" units provided, three shall be affordable to a County median income family and one shall be affordable to a County moderate income family. 3. The affordability of the units shall be guaranteed for a period of at least tan years. 4. That development is subject to the review and approval of a Development Agreement for Newport Center as required by General Plan Amendment 93-1(e) (Portion). w * • The Planning Couniesion recessed at 11300 p.m. and reconvened at 11:10 p.m. • . s Coewissioner ealalis suggested that items No. 5 and b be heard as the last items on the Agenda. The Applicants for these items stated that this would be acceptable. • • • -45- 3f "Y OF N EW PO RT 8 ACH COUNT.! L MEMBERS su... i•� ��'9 yam? i�G April 9. 1984 MINUTES INDEX (1) Gilbert Leavitt Woodward II Woodward III alleging personal injuries, loss of employment. etc., as a result of arrest by Newport Beach Police Department on March 18. 1984. ! (m) Application to Present Late Claim Harris of John Thomas Morris alleging !j false arrest on uctober 3. 1983; seeking reimbur-:ement for time spent in jail. -etc. For r ection: (n) La Claim of Alvin Lopez alleging Lopez PoI a Department acted without Warr t or probable cause. and he was d wined forcibly for a period ea _ of app two hours on Decembe 14. 1983. 7. SUMMONS AND L.AINTS - For denial and (36) confirmation of he City Clerk's referral to the c aims adjuster: (a) Dean MacCabe r Cross -Complaint MacCabe for Equitable emnity and Declaratory Reli . Orange County Superior Court, a No. 396378. 8. REQUEST TO FILL PERSOIN. VACANCIES: (66) (Report from the City Zia er) (a) One Utilities Construc on Foreman. Utilities Department. (b) One Associate Planner, Cu eat t Planning Division. (c) One Purchasing Clerk II. Pur sing Division. (d) One Maintenance Man I -Concrete, Field Maintenance Division. 9. STAFF AND C0.MISSION REPORTS: a) Removed from the Consent Calendar. 10. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING - For April 23. 1984: (a) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83-2(c) CPA 83-2(c) Portion - Consideration of (45) amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan. redesignating the site on the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road from "Low -Density Residential" to Volume 38 - Page 109 COPY Of NEWPORT B CH COUNUL MEYMM April 9. 1964 MMUTES "Recreational and ,yarina Commercial." initiated by the laity of Newport Beach, for the purpose of consistency with the Certified Land Use Plan of the Newport Brach Local Coastal Program; and the adoption of an Environmental Document; AND TEENTATIVE `iAP OF TRACT NO. 11937 - A request to subdivide 11.2 acres of land into a single lot for residential condominium purposes so as to allow the construction of a 154 unit residential development. (This project includes PL►.NNING COMMSSION A21E?1 mENT NO. 605, POM ALSO A TRAFFIC STUDY AND -- SIT NO. 9, which have been called up for City Council review and public hearing on April 23. 1964.) (Report from Planning Department) - (b)�PLAN'NING COMMISSION AMENDY.ENT No. 597 A request of QUAIL STREET PARTNERS. Newport Beach. to amend the previously -approved Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations so as to allow the expansion of an existing office �building located in "Professional and .Business office Sites 1 and 2" and the acceptance of an Environmental Document. (This project also includes the Nn'PORT PLACE TRAFFIC PHASING PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 6, which has been called up for City Council review and public hearing on April 23. 1984.) (Report from Planning Department) lI. NONSTANDARD MROVEMENT AGRFEMENT FOR A DR1VZWAY AT $01 CLIFF DRIVE - Authorize the execution of a nonstandard irproveucnt agreement Tor the construction of a brick` -driveway in the public right-of-way. (Report from Public Works) 12. RESUHDIVISION NO. 735 - Approve a subdivision agreement guaranteeing completion of the public improvements required with Resubdivision No. 735; authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to e execute said agreement; and accept the Volume 39 - Page 110 THpTr 11937 PCA 605/ TrfkStdy/ RsdntlCDev Pant/9 PCA 597 NptPlTrfk Phsg ?W Amndi6 Permit/ D r%"WY (65) Resub 735 Alf OF NEWPORT 8 CH COUNOL MEMBM disk~ It Oft � �+ , March 26, 1984 INnFY Mary Larriek. 3000 Cliff Drive. and Maxine Broback, 317 Santa An& Avonue, addressed the Council in support of the ley isprovesients. Motion z Mot was Trade to direct staff to All Ayes cant the proceedings; and authorize staff employ the firm of Duce and McCoy lilting Civil Engineers. of Corona del r. to prepare plans and an . estimate fox proving both of the alleys in Elo 11. First Addition to Newport Heights `or a fee not to exceed $3.150. K. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Motion x 1. Motion was made to ache a public All Ayes .,airings on the following tens: (a) May 14, 1984 - Traf Study CPA 83-1(c)/ and Certificate of Correc on for Tfk Study 6 Tract 11018 - CPA 83-1(c); `. Certifct Correction (b) April 23, 1984 - Amendment o. 6 to Newport Place Traffic Phasi Amd/6/Npt Plan; and Pl Tfk Phs& (c) April 23. 1984 - Traffic Study CPA 83-2(c)/ and - Res iden '��_sapp t Tfk Study 6 !iQ_ 4_- CPA 83-2(c) Planning Rsdntl _Persiit Commission Asendmient No. 605. /9 PCA rO5 s Motion vas Bade to direct Off -Street Trolley/ Nation All Ayes Parking Committee to work with Traffic Shuttle 5[dy Engineer and other appropriate members of staff regarding trolley/shuttle Ludy. Meeting djourned at 10:10 p.m. i Volume 38 - Page 103 ^` yek City Council !Besting A it 23 1984 Agenda Item No. D-3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACl1 TOz City Council YRomt Planning Department SUBJECTS General Plan Amendment 83-2(c)Portion Consideration of amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, redesignating the site on the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road from "Low -Density Residential" to "Recreational and Marine Commercial," for the purpose of consistency with the Certified Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program; and the acceptance, approval and certification of an Environmental Impact Report. INITIATED BYi The City of Newport Beach AND Planning Commission Amendment No. 605 - Ordinance No. 84-13 A request to establish Planned Community Development Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for property located at the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Roadi AND Traffic Study A request to consider a traffic study for a 154 unit residential condominium developments AND Tentative Hap of Tract No. 11937 A request of Irvine Pacific, Newport Beach, to subdivide 11.2 acres of land into a single lot for residential condominium purposes so as to allow the construction of a 154 unit resi- dential development= Mall Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 9 A request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 154 unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implsmsntation`of the State law relative to low and moderate -income housing within the Coastal Zone. TOi City C cil - 2. LOCATION: Portions of Blocks 55 and 94, Irvine's Subdivision, located at 1200 East Coast Highway, on the northeasterly corner of Jamboree Road and East Coast Highway, across from Irvine Terrace. ZONE: P-C APPLICANT: Irvine Pacific, Newport Beach OWNER: The Irvine Company, Newport Beach FNGINEER: Adams/Streeter, Civil Engineers, Irvine Applications The applications requested, if approved, will permit development of a 154 unit apartment/condominium project on the site located at 1200 East Coast Highway in Newport Center. The requests include an amendment to establish Planned Community District Regulations for the project site. A40ption of this amendment also requires an amendment to the Newport Beach Ctneral Plan for the commercial site In the Planned Community District Regulations. Approval of a Tentative Hap is also requested so an to subdivide 11.2 acres Into two lots for residential condominium purposes and one residual parcel. A Traffic Study has been prepared pursuant to Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal code and Council Policy S-1 for the proposed development. Also requested is approval of a Coastal Residential Development Permit to establish project compliance with the City's guidelines for the implementation of State law relative to the provision of low- and moderate -income housing in the Coastal zone. Amendment procedures are set forth in Section 20.84 of the Municipal Code. Tentative Tract Map procedures are set forth in Chapter 19.12 of the Municipal Code. Suggested Action A. Approve the project an recommended by the Planning C,mission and 1) Adopt resolution accepting, approving and certifying the Final Envi- ronmental Impact Reports 2) Make the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Reports 3) Find that the facto get forth in the Statement of Overriding Consid- erations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final Environmental impact Reports 4) With respect to the project, find that although the Final Envion- mental Impact Report identifies certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, the mitigation measures identified shall be incorporated into the General Plan, and all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant, effects, when balanced against the facts net forth in said Stataa:snt of overriding Considerations, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental effects, are acceptable= TO: City Gil -• 3. 5) Adopt Resolution No. , approving amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Nevport Beach General Plant 6) Adopt Ordinance No. R4-13, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING P L.A)INED COMNgN I TY DEVEL.OPMP. W STANDARDS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF EAST COAST HIGHWAY AND JAMBOREE ROAD (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT No. 605) as introduced by the City Council on April 9, 1984, 7) Sustain the action of the Planning Commission on the Traffic Study for the Villa Point Planned Comunity, 8) Approves the Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 with the Findings and subject to the Conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, 9) Sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission with respect to Coastal Residential Devolopawnt Permit No. 91 OR R. Modify the project as recommended by the Planning Ccammission, making such changes as deemed appropriate, and approve the revised project, OR C. Continue the public hearing; OR D. Deny the project. Planning Commission Action At its meeting of March 22, 1904, the Planning Commission voted (7 Ayes) to recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 63-2(c)Portion, Amendment No. 605, Traffic Study, Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937, and Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 9. Also recommended is certification of the Environ- mental Impact Report. The Findings and Conditions of Approval are as follows: A. Environmental Document 1. Approve the Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Newport Beach, Villa Point Apartments, Pacific Coast Highway Frontage, and supportive materials, 2. Recomssend that the City Council certify the Environmental Document is cowpletel 3. Make the Findings listed below, TO: City Ail - 4. FINDINGS: 1. That the environmental document has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State ZIP Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That the contents of this environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on the project. 3. That in order to reduce adverse impacts of the proposedl project, all feasible mitigation measures discussed in the environmental document have been incorporated into the proposed project. B. General Plan Amendment 83-2(c) (Portion) 1. Adopt Resolution No. 1118, recommending to the City Council the adoption of amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan for the Coast Highway/ Jamboree rite. C. Amendment No. 605 1. Adopt Resolution No. 1119, recommending to the City Council the adoption of the Villa Point Planned Cocmunity District Regulations, incorporating any desired changes. D. Traffic Stud 1. Approve the Traffic Study and make the following Findings, based upon the facts and subject to the Conditions listed below:' FINDINGS: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Policy S-1. 2. That the Traffic Study indicates that the project -generated traffic will be greater than one percent of the existing traffic during the 2.5 hour peak period on any leg of six critical intersections, and will add to an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at two critical intersections, which will have an Intersection Capacity Utilization of more than .9000. 3. That the Traffic Study suggests circulation system improvements which will improve the level of traffic service to an acceptable level at all critical intersections. TO: City CAil - 5. CONDITION: 1. That prior to occupancy of any portion of the project facilities, the circulation system improvements described in the Traffic Study to the intersections at Jamboree Road and Bristol Street and at Jamboree Road and Ford Road will be in place (unless subsequent project approval requi.ras modification thereto). The circulation system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. E. Tentative Hap of Tract No. 11937 1. Recommend that the City Council approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 subject to the following Findings and Conditions of Approval: FINDINGS: 1. That the map meets the requirements of Title 19 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, all ordinances of the City, all applicable general or specific plans, and the Planning Commission is satisfied with the plan of subdivision. 2. That the proposed subdivision presents no problems from a planning stand- point. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of develop- ment. 4, That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. b. That the proposed development will generate an increase in daily trips sufficient in magnitude to warrant a fair share assessment to mitigate the increased traffic congestion and traffic noise resulting from the cumula- tive affect of additional traffic generated by commercial, office and multiple residential development in the center. CONDITIONS: 1. That a final asap be filed. 2. That development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans sub- mitted except as noted below, 3. That all improvements be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public works Department. 4. That a standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety be provided to guarantee satisfactory completion of the street improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit or record the tract map prior to completion of the public improvements. '~ • - Tot City Acil - 6. 5. That each dwelling unit be served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewn systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 6. That the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. 7. That the design of the private streets and drives confortmm with the City's private street policy (L-4), except as approved by thO {public Works Department. The basic roadway width shall be a minims of 32 feet. The location, width, configuration and concept of the privatn street and drive system shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer, and the Fire Department. 6. That the intersection of the private streets with public streets be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 45 miles per hour. Slopes, landscaping, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight distance line shall not exceed twenty-four inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non -critical locations, subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 9. That the California Vehicle Code be enforced on the private streets and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works Department be provided along the sidelines of the private streets and drives. 10. That no control gate at the entrance shall be allowed unless the entrance area is redesigned to allow for a turn -around to be provided prior to the gate. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. 11. The easements for ingress, egress and public utility purposes on all private streets be dedicated to the City, and that all easements be shown on the tract map. 12. That asphalt or concrete access roads shall be provided to all public utilities, vaults, manholes, and junction structure locations, with the width to be approved by the Public Works Department. 13. That all vehicular access rights to East Coast Highway be released and relinquished to the City of Newport Beach except for one access point, with the location to be approved by the Public Works Department. 14. That landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval of the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and the Public Works Department. 15. That street, drainage and utility improvements be shown on standard iaprovement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer. 16. That a hydrology and hydraulic study be prepared and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on -site improvements prior to recording of the final map. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. TO: city Coil - 7. • 17. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall Include verifica- tion from the Orange County Sanitation District and the Clty'■ Utilities Department. 19. That a maximum of ten feet of pedestrian easement or additional right- of-way be dedicated to the public for street and highway ptirposas along the East Coast Highway Frontage adjacent to Lots No. 1 OrA 2, and the residual parcel, with the exact amount to be determined toy the Public Works Department. This right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City prior to June 1, 19B4. 19. That additional right-of-way be dedicated to the public for street and highway purposes along Back Bay Drive from Jamboree Road to East coast Highway. The roadway shall have a minimum right-of-way width of 72 feet and a maximum width of 82 feet. 20. That full improvements be constructed along Sack Fray Drive from Jamboree Road to East Coast Highway. Those improvements shall include but not be limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement and street lie=hts. 21. That the developer construct a traffic signal at the intersection of East Coast Highway and Back Bay Drivn. The plans for the traffic signal shall be reviewed and approved by the Public works Department. This signal shall be installed prior to occupancy unless otherwise approved by tl'.e Public Works Department. A separate agreement and surety may be provided for this work. 22. That the developer be responsible for 50% of the cost of the traffic signal at the intersection of ,jamboree Road with Back Bay Drive. A separate agreement and surety should be provided. 23. That the developer contribute to the City the cost of improving East coast Highway to major highway standards along the proposed tract frontage which runs from Back Bay Drive easterly to the easterly boundary of the tract. This contribution shall be deposited with the City prior to recording any tract maps or issuance of any grading or building permits. 24. The Irvine Company shall provide for approximately 1,100 linear feet of an off -site storm drain, from the Jamboree Road intersection down Back Bay Drive to the existing storm drain inlet structure at the Sack Bay. This storm drain shall be constructed concurrently with project construction. 25. A storm drain shall be provided as part of the project, to channel surface waters frog► the project site and a portion of East Coast Highway to the master -planned off site storm drains. This storm drain shall be construc- ted concurrently with project construction. 26. That the location of fire hydrants and water mains shall be approved by the Fire Department. 27. That emergency access to and within the site shall be approvod by the Fire Department. • TO: City Ail - 8. 28. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit to be ap- proved by the Building and Planning Departments. 29. That a grading plan shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. 30. The grading permit shall include a description of haul r1AJt.e8, access points to the site, watering, and sweeping programs designod to minimize impact of haul operations. 31. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be 641mitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department, and a copy shall he forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Mard, Santa Ana Region. 32. The velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall he evaluated, and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. 33. That grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a civil engineer and based on recommendations of a soils engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a cmprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans on standard size sheets shall be furnished to the Building Department. 34. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a canner to assure that increased peak flaws from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and building Departments. 35. That erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within thirty days after grading or as approved by the Grading Zngineer. 36. All proposed development shall provide for vacuum sweeping of parking areas. 37. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the developer and grading contractors of the results of the study. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the under- lying Boil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the ' authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the finds. 38. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of the subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the landowner and/or developer. r� •TO: City it - 9. 39. A paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner and/or developer to attend pregrade meetings and perform intPections during development. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divdrt, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. 40. Should fossils be discovered during grading operations, the landowner shall donate the fossils collected to a non-profit institutlfn. 41. prior to issuance of any grading or demolition permits, the applicant shall waive the provisions of AB952 related to City ut Newport beach responsibilities for the mitigation of archaeological impacts, in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. 42. That prior to the occupancy of any unit, a qualified acoustical engineer, retained by the City at the applicant's expense, shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the planning Director that the noise impact from East Coast Highway and Back Bay Drive on the project does not exceed 65 db CNEL for outside living areas and the requirements of law for interior spaces. 43. Prior to issuance of Any building permits authorized by the approval of this tentative Nap, the applicant shall deposit with thou City's Finance Director the sus: proportional to the percentage of future additional traffic related to the project in the subject area, to be used for the construction of a sound -attenuation barrier on the southerly side of Kest Coast Highway in the west Newport Area and in the Irvine Terrace and Jamboree Road areas. This contribution is estimated to be $21,600, based on 1,080 daily trips at $20 per trip. 44. Prior to the issuance of any building and/or grading permit, the applicant shall pay its 'fair share" of circulation systems improvements for the ultimate circulation system. This contribution is estimated to be $231,120, based on 1,080 daily trips at $214 per trip. In lieu of a monetary fair -share contribution, the City will accept the dedication of the additional right-of-way needed for the Coast Highway widening project between Jamboree Road and Bayside Drive to fulfill this condition. This dedication would include only the land owners interests in the De Anza Village area and be further defined as needed by the Public Works Depart- ment. 45. That prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall enter Into an agreement with the City, approved by the City Attorney and the Planning Director, which guarantees the provision of four "affordable" units on site or off site in the Baywood expansion. 46. Of the "affordable' units provided, three shall be affordable to a County median income family and one shall be affordable to a County moderate income family. 47. The affordability of the units shall be guaranteed for a period of at least ten years. • TO: City Jail - 10. 48. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall satisfy the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance to the satis- faction of the Planning Director. 49. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. 50. All mechanical equipment, vents, and other service equlymnnt shall be shielded or screened from view by architectural features. 51. Upstairs patio areas will be glassed in for all areas within the 65 CNEL contour. Units within these buildings will also be provide4 with aluminum sliding windows of normal 1/8 inch thickness. Downstairs units within the 65 CNEL contour will be shielded from the noise source by a barrier approved by the Planning Director. 52. Parking areas shall be paved early during construction. 53. CT. -enable windows shall be used to allow cooling by normal breezes. 54. A lighting plan which describes how energy conservation has been incor- porated into the lighting scheme shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Department. 55. A solar hot water system will be installed for the ccx ►unity pool and spa. 56. Prior to approval of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall consult with the Public works Department and the Orange County Transit District regarding the provision of a bus stop and related amenities (i.e., shelter, bench) along East Coast Highway adjacent to the project site. The applicant shall be responsible for the installation of a permanent bus stop along East Coast Highway subsequent to widening of the highway in 1985-86. An interim bus stop with access to the project site may be provided until that time. If required, the applicant shall be responsible for the dedication and installation of a permanent bus stop along East Coast Highway. 57. The City of Newport Beach requires each project to provide for all necessary roadway improvements. Several improvements necessary for this project have been required of previously -approved projects but are not yet constructed. The project will be required to contribute to or provide full improvements to intersections identified in the Traffic Study (unless subsequent project approval requires modification thereto). The circula- tion system improvements shall be subject to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer, 58. That the driveway be designed for two-way ingress and egress if determined to be feasible by the Public Works Department and that it not be provided until the nursery use is terminated. huther, that the driveway onto Coast Highway be closed, if feasible. 59. That development is subject to the review and approval by the City of a Development Agreement for Newport Center as required by General Plan Amendment No. 83-1(e) . TO: city Cecil F. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9 1. Approve Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9, stake the following Findings, based upon the facts and subject to the Conditions listed belowt FINDINGS: 1. That there are no social, technical, environmental or related problems associated with the provision of four affordable housing units. 2. That four affordable housing units could be provided an4 still allow a ' reasonable return on investment. 3. That development of the site is not exempt from the provisions of State law relative to low and moderate -income housing in the Coastal Zone. 4. TM t 121 of the proposed 154 units will be matched on a one -tor -one basis with affordable housing units on the Newport Village, Fifth Avenue And !MacArthur Boulevard or Baywood Expansion sites. COUDITIONS s 1, That prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, approved by the City Attorney and Planning Director, which guarantees the provision of four "affordable" units on site or off site in the Baywood expansion. 2. Of the "affordable" units provided, three shall be affordable to a County median income family and one shall be affordable to a County moderate income family. 3. The affordability of the units shall be guaranteed for a period of at least ten years. 4. That development is subject to the review and approval of a Development Agreement for Newport Center as required by General Plan Amendment 83-1(e) (Portion). Background At its meeting of March 26, 1984, the City Council called up for review the Traffic Study and Residential Coastal Development Permit No. 9 for this project so as to discuss these items with General Plan Amendment 83.2(c)Portion, Amend- ment Imo. 605, and the Tentative flap of Tract No. 11937 on April 23, 1984. Analysis The applicant requests these approvals in order to construct a 154 unit resi- dential apartment/condominium project with related recreational facilities. The Planned Community District Regulations establish the residential develop- ment standards for the residential site and also establish the permitted uses for the rn rcial site bounded by East Coast Highway, Jamboree Road and Back Hay Drive. The proposed development soots or exceeds all development standards set forth. ■ ■ TO: City Cecil - 12. • General Plan Amendment 83-2(c)Portion On November 14, 1984, the City Council initiated an amendment to the General Plan to bring about consistency with the Certified Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program. A portion of this amendment is being brought forward in conjunction with this project.. The Land Use Element of the General Plan currently designates the site for Low -Density Residential use. The local Coastal Program shows the site bounded by East Coast Highway, Rack Bay Drive and Jamboree Road as Recreational and Marine Commercial, and the balance of the site as Medium -Density Residential. Since both the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program provide for the transfer of units in Newport Center, no amendment to the existing Low -Density Residential designation is necessary for the residential portion of the project area. It is necessary to amend the General Plan Land Use designation for the commercial site to Recreational and Marine Commercial. Language will be added as follows: "The Coast Highway/Jamboree site is shown for Recreational and Marine Commercial. Office use may be permitted on the site provided traffic mitigation measures include fiscal contribu- tion to a shuttle system combined with public parking in the garage. Office use should also include provisions for an af- fordable visitor -serving use such an a public view deck and restaurant facility." Affordable Housing Of the 154 dwelling units proposed to be constructed, 33 are specifically allocated to the site and 121 units are transferred to the site as a result of General Plan Amendment 83-1(e) Newport Center. The 121 market rate units are part of the market rate "matching units" given for the construction of afford- able housing units on the Newport Village site. Consistent with the City's Housing Element, the Planning Commission has required the provision of four affordable housing units in conjunction with the development of the 33 units allocated to this site by the General Plan. These four units are to be provided on site or off site in the Baywood Expansion, and are to be available for ten years as assured through the recordation of an affordable housing agreement. The overall development is subject to the approval of a development agreement regarding the provision on affordable housing in Newport Center. As recommended by the Planning Commission, the four affordable housing units should be affordable to County median -income family standards (three units) and County moderate -income family standards (one unit). It is the recommendation of staff that Condition No. 46 of the Tentative Map and Condition No. 2 of the Residential Coastal Development Permit be revised an follows: "Of the `affordable, units provided, three shall be affordable to a County median -income family and one shall be affordable to a County low-income family." The revised wording will be consistent with previous City requirements for af- fordable housing. 0 • ' TO: City Co:Tncil - 13. Fair Share The Planning Commission required a "fair share" contribution to circulation system improvements in conjunction with this project with the provision that the dedication of the additional right-of-way needed for the Coast Highway widening project between Jamboree Road and Bayside be considorod the "fair share" contribution. This dedication would include only the land owners' interests in the De Anza Village area. Attached for the information and review of the City Council in at: excerpt of the Planning Commission minutes of March 22, 1984, and a copy of the Planning Commission staff report which describes the applicants' request. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HZIWICKER, Director by L1 * Liu- PATRICIA LEE TEMPLE Environmental Coordinator PLT/kk Attachments for City Council only: 1. Excerpt from the Planning Commission Minutes of 3/22/84 2. Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments 3. Draft Environmental Impact Report 4. Attachment No. 1 to the Draft EIR 5. Tentative Map, Plans and Elevations i City Council Ang HaX 14 1984 f Agenda Item No. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council PROMS Planning Department SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMi'N KENT 83-2(c)Portion - Consideration of amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, redesignating the site on the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road from "Low -Density Residential" to "Recreational and Marine Commercial," initiated by the City of Newport Reach, for the purpose of consistency with the Certified Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program; and the acceptance, approval and certification of an Environmental Impact P-eporti EC PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMEuT No. 605 (Proposed. ORDINANCE. No. 84-13) - A request to establish Planned Community Development Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for property located at the northeasterly corner of East Coast Ilighway and Jamboree Road+ TRAFFIC STUDY - A request to consider a traffic study for a 154 unit residential condominium development) AND TEICTTATIVE MAP OF TRACT No. 11937 - A request of IRVIIrE PACIFIC, Newport Beach, to subd vide 11.2 acres of land into a single lot for residential condominium purposes so as to allow the construction of a 154 unit residential development; F� RESIDEUTIAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT No. 9, - A request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 154 unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Adminis- trative Guidelines for the implementation of the State law relative to low- and moderate -income housing within the Coastal Zone. Sugaested Action Hold hearing; close hearing; if desired, TO: City Cecil - 2. • A. Approve the project as recommended by the Planning COMMission and a. C. D. 1) Adopt resolution accepting, approving and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report; 2) Bake the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final Envirorawntal Impact Report; 3) Find that the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Consid- erations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final Environmental Impact Report; 4) With respect to the project, find that although the Final Environ- mental Impact Report identifies certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result if *the project is approved, the mitigation measures identified shall be incorporated into the General Plan, and all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts sot forth in said Statement of Overriding Considerations, giving greater weight to the unavoid- able environmental effects, are acceptable; 5) Adopt Resolution No. , approving amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; 6) Adopt Ordinance No. 84-13, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPT114G PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERLY COPNER OF EA5T COAST HIGHWAY AND JAMBOREE ROAD (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT No. 605) as introduced by the City Council on April 9, 1984; 7) Sustain the action of the Planning Commission on the Traffic Study for the Villa Point Planned Community; 8) Approve the Tentative Hap of Tract No. 11937 with the Findings and subject to the Conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission; 9) Sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission with respect to Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 9; OR Modify the project as recommended by the Planning Commission, making such changes as deemed appropriate, and approve the revised projects Continue the public hearing; Deny the project. OR OR s, TOT City Wil - 3. • • Background On April 23, 1984, the City Council held a public hearing on the previously - outlined items. During the public hearing, residents of the Sea island Condominium project gave testimony indicating that, as new residents in the area, they were only becoming aware of the proposed project. They therefore requested that these items be continued to allow the homeowners$ association to study the project. The City Council continued the public hearing to its meeting of May 14, 1984. Discussion The staff report of April 23, 1984 outlined the recommendatior, of the Planning Commission and briefly described the issues related to the project. This report, with attachments, is attached. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Attachment No. 1 to the Draft EIR'were also distributed to the City Council. It in requested that the Council bring these documents to the meeting. During the public hearing on April 23rd, the City Council questioned staff regarding the phasing of the Villa Point project with the required affordable housing units on the Newport Village site. Staff has provided additional language addressing this concern, which should be added to the Conditions for Approval of the Tentative Tract Map encl the Coastal Residential Development Permit, as follows, "That the Development Agreement shall include provisions for the phasing of the Villa Point project with the construction of affordable housing units an the Newport Village, Baywood Expansion or Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard sites. In the event one or more of these projects cannot be timed to coincide with the construction of this project, the City may allow the appropriate number of affordable housing units to be provided on a temporary basis on site; off site on the Baywood Expansion, Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard or Newport Village sited or a combination thereof." Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director by PATRICIA L. 'TEMPLE Environmental Coordinator PLT/kk Attachment for City Council only, City Council Staff Report from April 23, 1984 Az - !. City Council m4ttinq May 29, 1984 �.., iu FROM I SUBJECTt Agenda Item No. CITY OF %.iEWPORT BEACH City Council Planning Department -- Continued public hearing and CitX Council review oe, D-1 GENERAL PLAN AM87MMrr 83-2(c)Portion - Consideration of amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, redesignating the site on the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road from. "Low -Density Residential" to "Recreational and Marine Commercial," initiated by the City of Newport Beach, for the purpose of consistency with the Certified Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program; and the acceptance, approval and certification of an Environmental Impact Report, AND PLANNING COMMISSICH AM M}MENT No. 605 (Proposed oADIt1M10E No 84-13) A request to establish Planned Community Development Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for property located at the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Roadl AND TRAFFIC STUDY - A request to consider a traffic study for a 154 unit residential condominium development, P hl] TENTATIVE MAP Of TRACT No. 11937 - A request of IRVINE PACIFIC, Newport Beach, to subdivide 11.2 acres of land into a single lot for residential condominium purposes so as to allow the conatruction of a 154 unit residential development; AtiD NQ _.9 - A request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 154 unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State law relative to lour- and moderate -income housing within the Coastal Zone. _ - • • 1 R : a+. n� .�r Cr ie..• ,..�„a!': %-J'+'�L ' 4a•:-�+:fa:�.it` 'o-.. r TO: City Clark - 2. 9 Suggested Action Hold hearing, close hearing, if desired, A. Approve the project as-reccmrgended by the Planning Caarsission and 1) Adopt Resolution No.- �+ accaptinq, approving and certifying the Final Environmental i*+pact Report] 2) Make the findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Reports 3) Find that the facts set forth Considerations in the 5tateasent of overriding are true and are supported evidence in the record, including the Final Envionmentaltantial Impact Report, a) With respect to the project, find that although the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, the mitigation measures identified shall be incorporated into the General Plan, and all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in said Statement of Overriding Considerations, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental effects, are acceptable, 5) Adopt Resolution No. approving amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; 6) Adopt Ordinance No. 64-13, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BAH ADOPTING PLANNED CommUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE t;ORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF CAST COAST HIGHWAY AND JAMBOREE ROAD (PLANNING COHMISSI021 AHEUDHEl,T No. 605) as introduced by the City Council on April 9, 1904j 7) sustain the action of the Planning Commission on the Traffic Study for the Villa Point Planned Community, 8) Approve the Tentative Nap of Tract No. 11937 with the Find- ings and subject to the Conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission; 9) Sustain the recommendation of the Planning Cosa►ission with respect to Coastal Residential Development Permit No, q, TO: City Coil - 3. 8) Modify the project as recoasended by the Planning Coas:isaion, making such changes as deemed appropriate, and approve the revised projects OR C) Continue the public hearing; r. OR D) Deny the project. Background On April 23, 1984, the City Council held a public hearing an the previously - outlined items. During the public hearing, residents of the Sea Island Condominium project gave testimony indicating that, as new residents in the area, they were only becoming aware of the proposed project. They therefore requested that these items be continued to allow the homeowners# association to study the project. The City Council continued the public hearing to its meeting of May 14, 1984. At the meeting of May 14, 1984, further testimony was received by the Island Lagoon Community Association, and a further continuance of the applications to May 29, 1984 was granted. Discussion The staff report of April 23, 1984 outlined the reco=wndation of the Planning Commission and briefly described the issues related to the project. This report, with attachments, is attached. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and Attachment No. 1 to the Draft EIR were also distributed to the City Council. It is requested that the Council bring these documents to the meeting. Affordable !sousing - During the public hearing on April 23rd, the City Council questioned staff regarding the phasing of the Villa Point project with the required affordable housing units on the Newport Village site. staff has provided additional language addressing this concern, which should be added to the Conditions for Approval of the Tentative Tract asap and the Coastal Residential Development Permit, as follows: "That the Development Agreement shall include provisions for the phasing of the Villa Point project with the construction of affordable housing units on the Newport Village, Haywood Expansion or Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard sites. In the event one or more of these projects cannot be timed to coincide with the construction of this project, the City may allow the appropriate number of affordable housing units to be provided on a temporary basis on sites off site on the Baywood Expansion, Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard or Newport Village sites or a combination thereof.' Right -_of -way Dedication - The Conditions of Approval required dedication of right-of-way for the widening of Coast ftighway by dune 10 1984. Due to the continuances of the project, and a slower time frame for the FAU Coast Highway widening project, it is recommended that Condition uo. 18 of the Tentative Tract Map be revised as followsi .ru.r r�� Ik.. .. TO: City Council - i. • 18. That a maximum of ten feet of pedestrian easement or addi- tional right-of-way be dedicated to the public for strut and highway purposes along the East Coast Highway Frontage adjacent to Iota No. 1 and 2. and the residual parcel, with the exact amount to be determined by the Public Works Depart- ment. This right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City prior to August 1, 1984. Fair Share Contribution - In lieu of a monetary contribution for the project's "fair share" of circulation system improvements, the Planning COmission has recommended that the City accept the dedication of additional right-of-way needed for the Coast Highway widening project between Jamboree Road and Bayside Drive to fulfill the fair share requirement. The Irvine Company has requested that this contribution of additional right-of-way also apply to future development on the commercial site bounded by East Coast Highway, Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. if this request is approved by the City Council, staff has recommended that a limit be placed on the amount of credit generated at 0.5 times the buildable area of the commercial site. Staff is concerned, however, that The Irvine Company may interpret this credit as an indication of the future development potential of the site. At 0.5 FAR, the site could accommodate 180,774 sq.ft. of development. This can be compared to 60,000 sq.ft. approved by the City Council for the site in GPA 80-3 (rescinded by the City Council on February 8, 1902). Language has therefore been included to clarify the granting of fair share credit. 44. Prior to the issuance of any building and/or grading permit, the applicant shall pay its "fair share" of circulation systems improvements for the ultimate circulation system. This contribution is estimated to be $231,120, based on 1,080 daily trips at $214 per trip. In lieu of a monetary fair share contribution, the City will accept the dediCA- tion of the additional right-of-way needed for the Coast Highway widening project between Jamboree Road and Bayside Drive to fulfill this condition. This dedication would include only the landowner's interests in the De Anza Village area and be further defined as needed by the Public Works Department. The additional right-of-way dedicated will also satis!y the fair share requirement for the com- mercial development on the site bounded by east_ Coast Hi2h- wa , Jamboree Road and Back Ba_Drive. In noevent will the amount of fair share credit granted exceed 0.5 times the buildable area of the site. aY the lacement of this limit on fair share credit the City a not i i in that this level of intensity will be approved. Additionally, credit granted will only be for the development ultimately Approved on this site, and cannot be used by development on any other site Park Dedication - The Planning Commission recommended that the requirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance be satisfied. The City recently has accepted the dedication of the Mouth of Big Canyon and granted four acres of park credit for this dedication. The i'CH Frontage site is one of the sites which is eligible to use these park credits. It is recommended that this Condition be -revised an follows) TO: City Cecil - S. 48. ifiat!-prefer-te--the-#saesmace--eE-e:tY--bni}di�t+f-perw}tes-thR • app}#cant-aha}i-mat#sgr-the-teggiYeweRte►-of-tie-Perk-pod}- cation --a dinance--te--t}�e--snt#a#aetien-ai--the--p}enn�nq Director. That the recpirements of the Park Dedication Ordinance will be satisfied by the use of park crocfits ranted to The Irvine C n for the dedication--; the mouth of Big Canyon. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMF.S D. HEWICKER, Director by _ LAT&,2L= PATRICIA LEE TZKPLE Environmental Coordinator PLT/kk COY OF N EW PO RT BOkCH GOUML ME.� M 6WPJTES \16",_ tr. April 23. 1984 Motion : Motion was fade to approve Amendment No. All Ares 6 to the Newport Place Traffic Phasing plan, adopt Resolution No. 84-30 amseding the Newport Place -Planned Co mmuity District Regulations and-_,_ accept the Rnvironmental Docua,ent. 3. Mayor hart opened the public hearing and City Council review of COUD AL PLAN AST 83-2(c) Portion - Consideration of amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport leach General Plan. redesignating the site on the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road from "LowDtissity Residential" to "Recreational and Marine Commercial." initiated by the City of Newport Beach. for the purpose of consistency with the Certified Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program; and the acceptance. approval and certification of an Environmental Impact Report; AND pLUMINC,COMISSIOH _AMiNDMENT NO. 605 (PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 84-13) - A rsquest to establish Planned Community Development Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for property Located at the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road; (45) 83-2(c) 605 AND TRAFFIC STUDY - A request to consider a Traffic Stdy traffic study for a 154 unit residential condominium development; AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 11937 - A request of IRVINE PACIFIC. Newport !!each, to subdivide 11.2 acres of land into a single lot for residential condoninium purposes so as to allow the construction of a 154 unit residential development; AND hQ_ 9_ - A request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing; project compliance for a 154 unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the volume 38 - Page 117 TlipTr 11937 Residential CstlDvlp Perml9 COY OF NEIAIPORT BACN April 23, 1984 impleumtation of the State law relative to low -and moderate -income housing within the Coastal Zone. Report from the Planning Department. was presented. The City Clerk reported that after the agenda was printed. a letter was received from the Legal Aid Society cf Orange County requesting Tentative Tract Map No. 11937 be denied. Dave Duohowski of The Irvine Can?any. addressed the Council concerning certain Conditions of Approval. With respect to Condition No. 44 pertaining to "fair share," he requested that an additional sentence be added as follows: "further* this dedication of right-of-way will meet the future `fair -share' contribution for the cossercial parcel northeast of the intersection of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road." Regarding Condition No. 48 pertaining to park dedications Mr. Dmohowski stated that it is their intent to dedicate land in the Mouth of Big Canyon to satisfy this requirement. Relative to Condition No. 41 regarding AB 952. he stated that they did not feel this condition was appropriate; however, they are not objecting to it that strongly. In response to question raised regarding the County Mortgage Revenue Bond Program. Mr. Dmohowski stated that it is their desire to utilise this program to finance this project. and if the funding is available. 20% of the units on site Wald be affordable units. The rental units are estimated to be from $1,000 to $1.8OO per month. With respect to Condition No. 44. it was recommended by staff that additional language be added to the effect that "credit shall not exceed .5 times buildable." Barney Larks. 1901 Beryl Lane. addressed the Council regarding low- and moderate -income housing within the subject project, wherein it was noted that 80% of the available units will be affordable to County-redian family Volume 38 - Page 118 CPA 83-2(c) . CITY OF NEWPORT BE41CH COUMGtL YEMAIM April 23, 1984 LUTES IN DE Y R income. and 2OZ of the affordable units will be affordable to County -low family Income. Susan Porter. 32 Ocean Vista. and Susan Frederick, 18 Ocean Vista. Sea Island residents. addressed the Council and stated that they had not been notified personally of this project through their homeowners a863ciation. and therefore. requested the hearing be continued in ordar for then to obtain additional informatioL co:cerning the development. The staff noted that the Sea island Homeowners Association had been given notice of this public hearing on April 11. 1984. as well as notification of the project in September 1983. when the £IR was prepared. x wing_discu_ssion. notion was made to Follo_ Motion x continue e public hearing to May 14. th Ayes x x x x 1984. and direct staff to renotify the moss x Sea Island Homeowners Association of this continuance. 4. Mayor Hart opened the public hearing and CPA 83-2(b) City Council review of GENERAL PLAN (45) AMENDMENT 83-2(b). a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach. to amend the RMSING ELEMENT of the *tE1.'PORT BEACH ERA1. PLAIT to update the Co=unity rket Analysis and Housing Needs Asikessment sections on the basis of more recent data and revive the Constraints to Housing Delivery and housing Program Sections in response to implementation progress made since November of 1982. This aneads�ent is being made pursuant to Governmen. Code Section 65580 et. seq. Report from the Planning Department. was presented. \ Council Member Strauss stated that due to the importance of this issue. and inasmuch as the Cijy Council had just received the document for review. he would recommend this item be continued to May 14. L984. The Planning Director advised that if the hearing is continued, It would mean the draft Housing Element document could still be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. allowing then a 45-day review period. However, it would -not allow the Planning Commission sufficient time to review it with the comments from the State. \ Volume 38 - Page 119 l p'' I" G*Y OF NEWPORT dkcH COMM WAMEM 4 �A� 7p�fa f+o♦ �.G 'A'l 9~G RECULAR COCICIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers TIME: 7:30 P..4 DATE: May 14. 1984 MINUM lwncY Present x x x lotion x ll AAyes Notion a All Ayes x x x or'a Proclamation advocating "national Po a Week." was presented to Police Chief Gross Mayor Pro Tea Maurer. x A. ROLL \ D. The read.n* of Minutes of the Meeting of April 2 I984. was waived. approved as written. ; ardered filed. C. The reading in full of all or\ nc;�! and resolutions under considerat waived. and the City Clerk was direc to read by titles only- D. HEARINGS: I. Mayor Hart opened the continued public CPA 83-2(c) hearing and City Council review of (45) -GEM/AL PLAN AMENDMENT_ 83-2(c)_ Portione- Coasideration of amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan. redesignating the site on the northeasterly corner of Fast Coast Highway and Jamboree Road from "Low -Density Residential" to "Recreational and Marine Commercial." initiated by the City of Newport Beach, for the purpose of consistency with the Certified Land Use Plan of the Newport Desch Local Coastal Program; and the acceptance. approval and certification of an Environmental Impact Report; AND PLANNING CO.'i{ISSION AHENDHE2%T NO. 605 N_ PCA 605 (ORDINANCE NO. 84-13) - A request to (94) establish Planned Community Development Standards and adopt a Planned Community Development Plan for property located at the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road; AND TRAFFIC_STUDY_- A request to consider a raffic Stdy traffic study for a 154 unit residential condominium development; ARID TPItTA?IQE MAP OF TRACT NO. 11937 - A Tr 11937 request of IRVINE PACIFIC. Newport beach, to subdivide II.2 acres of land Into a single lot for residential condominium purposes so as to allow the construction of a 154 unit residential development; AND Volume 38 - Page 132 COY OF NEWPORT BACH MWUTES May 14, 1984 ]RESIDENTIAL COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT No. 9 - A request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Permit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 154 unit residential condominium development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State law relative to low -and moderate -income housing within the Coastal Zone_ Report from the Planning Deer::.=.,t* WA-1 presented. The City Manager. at the request of Council. explained that the item before them was basically. a modification of the City's General Plan (land Use Elessnt) so that it is consistent with the City's local Coastal Plan; and a subdivision process to permit coaatruction of the residential units. At the request of Council Member Strauss. the City Manager explained that the zoning on the property and the General Plan designation would accommodate low -density residential. Of the 154 duelling units proposed to be constructed. 33 are specifically allocated to the site and 121 units are transferred to the site, as permitted by General Plan Amendment 83-1(e) Newport Center. John Calaadro. 38 Ocean Vista. President of Island Lagoon Homeowners Association (within the Sea Island Development). addressed the Council regarding public notification process for the CEQA. State guidelines and City policy. The City's Envirowwntal Coordinator, Pat Temple, stated that CEQA does require, at the time that the EIR is prepared, to notify as many people as it can determine may have an interest. or persitting relationshtp in regards to a proposed project. CEQA requires that all State agencies who have an interest in the project be notified. and also gives a general direction within the guidelines that persons of interest be notified. While there is no specific direction. other than that a locality should know who might be interested in receiving a notice. the City has a system what is known as nonstatutory advisement. which means that it is not required by statute. but it is the Volume 38 - Page 133 Residential CstlDvlp Peru#9 4 A 83-2(c) &Y OF NEWPORT BACH COUNOL MINUTES �"♦, f G �ly, s� 9 Aft►May 14, 1984 City's effort to comply with this PA 83-2(c) portion of CEQA. As a matter of course* all homeowners associations are notified by the City of every Elk, as well as any individual who the City knows to be interested in a project, and such noticing was done with regard to this project. Planning Direc:rr James Hewicker. commented, t:iat there are certain other discretionary approvals associatod with this project. n('. it is the State requirement any the policy of the City to additional!) notify all owners of property as identified on the last equalized tax: rolls. In many cases the notice goes to a management company, who may fail to notice some of the people that are directly affected in a ti=ely fashion. This was noted as a problem during the hearing of April 23. and the 3-week interim was provided as an extra opportunity for anybody who had not received notice through normal channels to become aware of the project, and have an opportunity to have a presentation made by The Irvine Company, or come to the City and make a presentation. Mr. Hewicker added that the Planning staff attended a recent homeowners association meeting in an attempt to meet with them. Also. the City iaintains a list of all the associations within the City, both the mandatory associations. which people automatically become a member of when they buy into a residential development. and to the volunteer -type community associations. The City maintains a map of management companies and officers on the board. who are notified to the extent that the City has up-to-date information. Mr. Calandro stated that they had contacted Irvine -Pacific the afternoon of May 3 after the Island Lagoon 8omsorners Association board members met In hopes of obtaining another continuance to address the concerns of those homeowners who are relatively new to the community. on May 7 they had a regularly scheduled board meeting and they were told that The Irvine Company would not be asking the City Council for a continuance. but that they would be making a presentation tonight. Since that time, the Island Lagoon Homeowners Association still feel they need a Volume 38 - Page 134 M STY OF NEWPORT PEACH COUIIGL YEMNRS MMUTES May 14. 1984 F-AU continuance. as their questions have not been adequately covered. On the afternoon of May 10. Mr. Calandro stated he received a copy of the Planning Department staff report and EIR Study. That evening the hoeruaowners association had a meeting with approximately 15 families, and in attendance was Pat Temple. the City's Environmental Coordinator and The Irvine Company Representatives. At that time, the homeowners association again asked for a continuance with the City Council to that they could have time to digcat the Information. Suzanne Frederick, 18 Ocean Vista. addressed the Council, stating that her home was the closest to the development. Before purchasing her home she made inquiries regarding the proposed development and was told it would be low density. and that there would be four residential units per acre. She stated that she purchased in Sea Island Lagoon specifically with the understanding The Irvine Company, as owners of the land. purported that this was residential. low -density. which would sustain the health and welfare of her husband, who has gone through several major surgeries. Dave Dnohowski. representing The Irvine Company, addressed the Council with respect to the April 23 staff report. Condition No. 44. requesting that additional language be added to read: "Further this dedication of right-ofway shall moat the future fair -share contribution for the commercial parcel northeast of the intersection of Coast Highway and Jamobree Road." This is to provide for ultimate dedication of the future right-of-way for Coast Highway, westerly of Jamboree. In exchange The Irvine Company would receive fair -share credit for the future commercial parcel at the northeast corner of that intersection. Mr. Dmohowski stated that in the May 14 staff report, the City staff included a revised condition related to the Development Agreement for Newport Village and provision for affordable mousing. and wanted to tat the Council know The Irvine Company has no objection with the suggested language. Volume 38 - Page 135 83-2(c) C*Y OF NEWPORT BACH COUNaL MEMMM �',� �t�`�► �'�� May 14. 1984 ULNUTES INDEX •' In response to Council Member Agee. A 81-2(c) City Attorney Robert Burnham stated that the City has provided proper notice pursuant to local and State policies. The City Manager added that the condition referenced by Mr. Dmohovskl, In the foregoing. would be Condition No. 60: "That the Development Agreement shall include provisi,in:, for the pharirg of the Villa ioint project with the construction of affordable housing units on the Newport Village, Baywood Expansion or Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard sites. In the event one or more of these projects cannot be timed to _ coincide with the construction of this project. the City may allow - the appropriate number of affordable housing units to be provided on a temporary basis on site; off site on the Baywoud Expansion. Fifth Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard or Newport Village sites; or a combination thereof." Regarding further clarification of Condition No. 44 that already exists. City ?tanager Robert Wynn stated, it is proposed by The Irvine Company to add language to the effect that the proposed dedication of right-ofway, Coast Highway from Jamboree to Bayside to permit. when funding is available, widening the street. This dedication of right-of-way will meet the future fair -share contribution of the commercial parcel northeast of the intersection of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road at an maximum intensity of .5 x buildable. Dave Dmohowski. introduced James Montgomery of Irvine Pacific who. in response to Mayor Harts concern regarding utilizing the traffic signal at the golf course for ingress and egress rather than having another signal on Coast Highway. stated that one of the conditions on the project says that it Is their intent to tie that in if it is feasible. and is Condition No. 58. Mr. Montgomery addressed the Council with regard to concerns raised about the noise density and blockage of the golf course views. He stated that they will have combinations of bermes and walls oe Volume 38 - Page 136 C*Y OF NEWPORT BACH COUNM MEMem MINUTES A tT� .� ,] } J� May 14. 1984 the Pacific Coast Highway side of the project, but the interior of the project adjacent to the golf course will have wrought iron fencing at the request of the golf course operator. Further. that the mass of buildings along Pacific Coast Highway would block some noise generated by vehicular traffic to the Sea Island project. John Calandro. again addressed the Council. stating that the Island Lagoon Homeowners Association would like to have more time to submit a list of their concerns to The Irvine Company and the City Council regarding landscaping. vehicular traffic and noise levels &*aerated. signage, screening of trash areas, proposed bus stop and other issues. before they could feel comfortable with the development being proposed. David Menseher. 33 Ocean Vista. submitted a copy of the contiguous area report prepared by The Irvine Company. Marketing Division, and commented that it details everything the potential purchaser should know. except for the fact that there was going to be a zoning change. No notification was given to any single new owner during the escrow process. At the request of Mayor Hart. Mr. Montgomery illustrated on the wall swap where the parking and trash collection areas will be screened by the buildings. Mr. Montgomery stated that the signing will comply with the sign ordinance for Newport Center. Pat Temple, Environmental Coordinator, addressed the Council, illustrating on the wall map that the location of the proposed bus stop would be located along Fast Coast Highway. between Backbay Drive and Jamboree Road and adjacent to commercial developments. In ansver to Council Member Heather's question regarding the EIR, Planning Director James Hewicker stated that discussion took place during the fall of 1983. and the Sea Island Association was notified, as this was the only association that the Planning staff had knowledge of. As each segawnt of th• project is recorded. individual associations are formed. The Island "goon Association. apparently was formed in December of 1982 or 1983. Volume 38 - Page 137 CPA 83-2(c) C*Y OF NEWPORT BACH COUNOL MEMOM 'G May 14. 1984 a�u ■ w. ■ p � ■P� wwuns INDEX Chris Diales. 15 ocean Vista. addressed PA 83-2(c) the Council. stating that they purchased their land from The Irvine Company. and they received. shortly after tho close of escrow, a statement in the mail how proud The Irvine Company was to transfer the fee to each purchaser. yet there was no notification. or disclosure on the property. Mr. Diales stated that he was not opposed to the merits of the project, but is alarmed because he did not have time to think about it, and he is supporting a continuance. John Calandra, addressed the Council again, stating that their association board of directors are requesting they have a little bit more time. He stated that the last notification sent to Island Lagoon Association was sent to The Irvine Company and was never forwarded to them. Mayor Hart closed the public hearing. At the request of Council Member Heather. the public hearing was reopened. and Dave Dmohawski addressed the Council stating that they would be happy to consent to a two -week continuance to further discuss the concerns of the property owners and island Lagoon Homeowners Association. motion x Following discussion. a motion was made Ayes x x x x x x to continue the public hearing to May Note x 29._ 1984. ~ 2. Mayor Hart opened the continued public PA 83-2(b) hearing and City Council review of (45) GENEL►L PLAN AMFddWIM 83-21(b) . a request initiated by the City of Newport Beach, to amend the HORSING ELEKENT of the WEMRT BEACH GENERAL PLAN to update the Community Market Analysis and Housing Needs Assessment sections on the basis of more recent data and revise the Constraints to Housing Delivery and Housing Program Sections in response to implementation progress made since ovember of 1982. This amendment is ng made pursuant to Government Code Sec 65580 et. seq. Report fr the Planning Department. was presented. Volume 38 - Page 138 4 •6*Y OF NEWPORT 8 CH CDUWL YENN R'S QpLUiJIR COUNCIL MEETING 'e S'r► ptACE: Council Chambers !' ��# �G} �►� TIM: 7: 30 P.M. l�`_ lw di DATR: Say 29. 1954 present Absent Notion All Ayes Motion All Ayes x I x 12 Ix IX x x x I x ROLL "A' 1, WNUTU b. The read E the Minutes of the meeting of Mrtlr 1986, vas waived. approved as written ordered filed. C. The reading in full of all or nces and resolutinne under consideratio s waived, and the City Cleric was directe to read by titles only. 1 D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Hart opened the continued public bearing and City Council review of: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 83-2(c) Portion - Consideration of amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan, redesignating the site on the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboree Road from "Low -Density Residential" to "Recreational and Marine Commercial," initiated by the City of Newport Beach, for the purpose of consistency with the Certified Land Use Plan of the Newport Beach Local Coastal Program; and the acceptance, approval and certification of an Environmental Impact Report; AND PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 605 (PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 84-13) - A request to establish Planned Community Development Standards and adopt a Planned C mmunity Development Plan for property located at the northeasterly corner of East Coast Highway and Jamboret Road; AND TRAFFIC STUDY - A request to consider a traffic study for a 154 unit residential condominium development; AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 11937 - A request of IRVINE PACIFIC. Newport Beach, to subdivide 11.2 acres of land into a single lot for residential condominium purposes so as to allow the construction of a 154 unit residential development; G"N�7 Volume 38 - Page 165 5FA 83-2(c) (45) ?CA 605 (9y) affic Stdy r 11937 (*Y OF NEWPORT B&CH cou M mamom MOMMES My 29, 19M F E A request to consider a Residential Coastal Development Psrwit for the purpose of establishing project compliance for a 154 unit residential condosdniva development pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines for the implementation of the State law relative to lov-and moderate -income housing within the Coastal Zone. Report from the Planning Department. The City Manager summarized the staff report, noting four recommsmended changes: 1) Affordable Housing (Condition No. 60); 2) Right -of -Way Dedication (Condition No. 18); 3) Fair Share Contribution (Condition No. 44); and 4) -Park Dedication (Condition No. S8). Jim Montgomery of Irvine Pacific Company. displayed exhibits shoving an aerial photograph of the site, and a conceptual landscape plan. He stated that they had no objections to the proposed changes in the Conditions of Approval as recommended by staff. John Calandro, 38 Ocean Vista. President of Island Lagoon Homeowners Association, addressed the Council and stated they feel the proposed development is not consistent with the General Plan designated for the site, and that the density is too high. They also feel that the project is inconsistent with the Local Coastal Land Use Plan designated for the site of medium density residential. They also feel that the EIR is inadequate as it relates to the traffic impact analysis, and also does not discuss noise, visual or traffic impact upon adjacent areas such as Sea Island. In addition. growth Inducing impacts are not adequately identified or addressed in the EIR. In conclusion. they fool the donaity to too high for what is designated in the current General Plan. and would like the hearing to be continued and the EIR to be recirculated for additional public input. In response to the Mayor. the City Attorney reviewed the process for notification and circulation of the EIR. as well as notification of the public hearing. indicating that the City had satisfied the legal requirements of CEQA and the City's Zoning Code. Voluaw 38 - Page 166 Radntl Carl Dvlp Prd9 i CPA 83-2(c) dwy CO W.JL MElMM rep ��' 'G�e�'�► ''s�► }�� OF NEWPORT 8ACN MAY 29. 1984 Pat TeW le. Environmental Coordinator, responded to comments of Mr. Calandro regarding density and the LIR. Suzanne Frederick. 18 Ocean Vista. addressed the Council and expressed her concerns regarding density and impact on traffic and noise. Susan Porter, 32 Ocean Vista. addressed the Council and discussed the current traffic problem at Sea Island and how difficult it was to cross Jamboree Rriad. David Yaeger. 50 Ocean Vista, addressed the Council and ststed he was concerned with the investment of his home. and the proposed density. He also felt that the traffic pattern would be affected and add to the existing traffic problem around Sea Island. During course of discussion, it was noted that the development will be built and marketed as an apartment project. Also, at the time Sea Island was constructed. The Irvine Company wag required to fund 501 of a traffic signal at the intersection of the development and the Newporter Inn. As to the subject project. the developer will be required to install a traffic signal at the extension of Back Bay Drive and Pacific Coast Highway. and to fund 50'. of a signal at the extension of Back Bay Drive and Jamboree Road. which would work in concert with the signal at the entrance to Sea Island. In response to Council inquiry regarding the status of Amlings Nursery and their lease which expires in 1986. Dave Dmohowski advised that The Irvine Company is looking at alternate sites for relocation within the City. Council Member Plummer entered the meeting at this time. David Menscher. 33 Ocean Vista. addressed the Council regarding the two proposed traffic signals for .jamboree Road, indicating he felt they were too close to one another and that a bottleneck would be created. Volume 39 - Page 167 CPA 83-2(c) d*Y OF NEWPORT BILCH 00lA1 L MEMKRS do may 29. 1984 MINUTES INDEX John Calandro addressed the Council CPA 83-2(c) again regarding future effect if the apartment/condominiums development is approved. wherein the City Manager advised that staff has already responded to this concern. Rearing no others wishing to address the Council. the public hearing was closed. Motion x Motion was made to deny the project. Council Hemb.•r Strauss stated he did not feel the density was appropriate for the proposed location of the project. Council Member Plummer advised that she would abstain from voting on this item, inasmuch as she was not in attendance for all of the public testimony. Ayes x The motion was voted on and FAILED. Hoes x x x x x Abstain x Motion x Motion was made to approve the project Ayes x x x x x as recommended by the Planning Res 84-44 Noes x Commission; adopt Resolution No. 84-44 Abstain x accepting. approving and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report; wake the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report; find that the facts set forth in the Stateaent of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record. including the Final Environmental Lapact Report; with respect to the project, find that although the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, the mitigation measures Identified shall be incorporated Into the General Plan. and all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in said Statement of Overriding Considerations, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental effects, are acceptable; adopt Resolution No. 84-45, approving Res 84-45 amendments to the Land Use and Residential Growth Elements of the Newport Beach General Plan; adopt Volume 38 - Page I" &rY OF NEWPORT E&CH CO�MiCIL MEMMS 70� t+C�`~G - DES May 29, 1994 Ordinance No. 84-13. being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING pLAI M COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE VO&TH ASTERLY CORNER OF EAST COAST HIGRUAY AND JAMBOREE ROAD (PLANNING COMiGSSION AMENDMENT No. 605); sustain the action of the Planning Commission on the Traffic Study for the Villa Point Planned Community; approve the Tentative Map of Tract No. 11937 with the Findings and subject to the Conditions as reco■mendtd by the Planning Commission; and Sustain the recos cndation of the Planning Commission with respect to Coastal Residential Development Permit go. 9. 2. Mayor Hart opened the continued public -hearing and City Council review of a request by LOOMIS FOODS. INC.. Corona dt_1 Mar, that the City Council reconsider its action of February 13. 1994, as it pertains to USE PERMIT NO. 072 and the hours of operation of the ARE BAR AND GRILL" restaurant located a 2515 East Coast Highway. on the s heasterly corner of East Coast Hig y and Carnation Avenue in Corona del r; toned C-1. Report"€roe Police Department. was nresent The City Goo rk advised that after printing th agenda. a letter was received fro r David Grant, Attorney representing�hc applicant. and a petition sign64 by residents of Corona del Mar and ers of the Corona del Mar Chamber of mmerce. in favor of retaining the pre ent hours of operation. David Grant, Attorne'r for the Park Bar and Grill, addressed VC Council and reviewed the background for the subject restaurant. He stated sat the applicant is willing and greeable to modify its present noncom ruing use, as set forth in his letter dated May 29, 1984, Items 1 through 4. lit addition, the applicant is agreeable to'the Conditions of Approval set forth in the February 13. 1984 staff report; except for Condition No. 11, which is acceptable as revised in an accowanying letter to the City Attorney. Volume 38 - Page 169 Ord 64-13 U/P 3072 Loomis Foods (88) •y, IDptrlu. DFYEIA�T, COUNCIL POLICY P'-1 ww'T-Dr'•--H • t-�: P •pLAWING DEPOT CUXVjW pLpJDIING DIVISION 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 640-2218 or 640-2219 Applicant (print) Irvine Pacific moo Appl etion i+ec'd by F4`s 38 au-1 2za'--a 4 rq - --a oo 1 Phone 720-2838 P . O. Sox "I". Newport Beach, CA 92660-0015 ,Mailing Address rt Amer The Irvine Company. dba Irvine Pacific Phone 7'_0-2838 property Nailing Address Address of Property Involved same as above 0CL5-�- f-LLL North side of East Coast Highvay.,approx. off Jamboree (located within Newport Cent, y Involved (1f too long, attach separate sheet) Legal description of Propert -- arrached 1000 1. f . Construction of 154 ;apartment/condominium Description of the Proposed Project units w t44 Assoc ate lace sties requirements per the City of Newport Number of Units 154, affordable housing y will be met either Beach Housing Element and Polic P-1 onsite or offiste. *t*�r�yr��*w+rr*s�•*rlr�Ms*s•*��•�'��`� •• proposed selling *price•!of!lthe �*units. •*the Please attach a statement indicating S e P pos and any other information that could anticipated cost of developing the proposed with e affect the feasibility of providing low/moderate income units in conjunction proposed project. i••�M�•��R**��*��s�!l�M�*�s�s�+rr��f�a�*r�ra��r��a��a!*��,.s�l.�rf��*��R = (we) THE IRVINE COMPANY that tZxam1 (we are) the or.-ner (s) Of o the prurmitted& nS. r �' (we) further certifyr under penalty herein contained andthe (our) knowledgenendrbelieto the best of t2l i depose and say ,: Ived in this ap,Pl _cation, (1) fszecoing statements and answers in all respects true and correct 1 d F. OsHoocj., vice President INCQRPMTED # — * tricia G. bite, Assistant Secretary MARCH 10, 1933 sign z otrzser i ten authorization from the record owner is NOTE: An agent may � filed with the apple t. �e4,'f co DO NM CMpLETE APPLICATI0N bELOW THIS LINT Ili r Receipt No. r 7 Date Filed Fee Pd. planning Director Action Ar r t n 1 �----- Date — /L ,,,�,{ P.C. Act ion Lrti'f-�---- P.C. Hearing Date C.C. Hearing Date —�-� SG % rma ii Appe'al _---- C.C. Action` P-1 PROCEDURES FOR NEW DVMDPKDM 70�$ Determinat 1. Is the project in the Coastal Zone? Yes: See 12, No: The project is exempt from P-1. 2. Is the project site vacant: See 03. occupied by two or less residential units including rxcbile hoaxes: See $ 3. 0In non-residential use: See •_• t occupied by three or more residential units: See P-1 procedures for conversions and demolitions. 3. Does the project entail the residential units' ! 11 Yes: p-1 is applicable. QNo: The project is exempt. construction of three or more Procedures if Applicable policy P-1 is applicable. the property owner If under the above criteria and/or developer shall file an application for a 'Development permit which shall include the following information: 1. A description of the proposed project, including ita location and the num:or of units to be provided. 2. The cost of the proposed developm4 nt• 3. The anticipated return on investment by the developer. 4. A description of any social, technical, environmental or related problems associated with the provision of affordable housing units. rxied by a fee of 5250.00 Per residential unit. The application must be accoaxpaor pore residential units. the Planning if the project involves forty Coacxission may approve a reduction in the fees. DESCRIPTION ALL THAT CERTAIN LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PROPOSED TRACT NO. 11937, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE FOLLOWING: THAT PORTION OF BLOCK 5Z AND 94 OF IRVINE'S SUBDIVISIOtt, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 88 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, LYING EASTERLY OF JAMBOREE ROAD, A DESCRIBED IN EASEMENT DEED TO CITY OF NEWPORT VEACH, RECORDED JUNE 17, 1966 IN BOOK 7964, PAGE 631 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS1 NORTHWESTERLY OF COAST HIGHWAY, AS DESCRIBED IN EASEMENT DEED TO CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, RECORDED JULY 6, 1977 IN BOOK 12277, PACE 1310 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY EXTENSION THEREOF1 SO fHWE;TERLY OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL I OF PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN eM: 152, PAGES 17 AND IS OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIAl SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 9676 RECORDED IN BOOK 482. PAGES 1 TO 6, INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIAt AND NORTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF PARCE 3 OF PARCEL MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1529 PAGES 17 AND 16 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION INCLUDED IN PARCEL I AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOT; 12, PAGE 21 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.